The Sun. — London, England, 1836-06-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Ju.vz 27. The SPEALER took the Chair at the usual hour. The Sheriffs of London appeared at the Bar and pre sented a petition from the Lord Mayor and Common Coun cil of the City of London relative to Christ's Hospital. Mr. WARD moved the further consideration Of the re port on the London and Cambridge Railway. BRIGHTON RAILWAY. Captain ALSAGER brought in a Bill for making a rail way from London to Brighton. Sir WM. GEARY presented a petition from the Cap tains of vessels trading on the river Thames, against the Bill for regulating the navigation of that river. EASERN COUNTIES RAILWAY. On the motion of Sir C. B. VERE the Lords' Amend ments to the Eastern Counties Railway Bill were agreed to. Mr. W. PATTEN brought up the Report of the Com mittee on Ohe Liverpool Court of Requests' recommitted Bill. HALE RAILWAY: On the motion — Of cIy:PE - N D ARVES, the Lords' Amendments to the Hale Railway Bill were agreed to. HERNE BAY PIER. The Lords' Amendments to the Herne Bay Pier Bill were agreed to. On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, four Natura lization Bills were read a second time. Sir J. R. REID presented a petition from Epsom in favour of Sir John Rennie's Line of Railway to Brighton. Lord A. CHICHESTER presented petitions from Charlton and other places, praying the House to take im mediate steps for ameliorating the condition of the pauper lunatics, many of whom might be recovered if imme diate steps for their relief were taken. The lunatics were left in a state that called imperatively for the interference of the House. It was not his wish to en ter at any length into a discussion on the subject, but as circumstances had come to his knowledge with respect to the treatment of these lunatics, he hoped the House would indulge him while he mentioned some of those circumstances. In consequence of the poor lunatics of Devon not having a county asylum, they were suffering in a manner that was quite appalling to humanity. The SPEAKER put it to the Hon. Member whether he should now proceed to discuss the merits of the petition, as he would be bringing on a discussion which might last several hours. Lord A. CHICHESTER thought as he was in pos session of circumstances of great cruelty, he was only doing his duty in bringing the subject forward. The SPEAKER.--..1f the Hon. Member would give no tice, the subject might be brought regularly before the House. Lord A. CHICHESTER said that he had given notice of his intention to present the petition, and he trusted that the K'ob'e Lord, the Secretary of State, to whom he had communicated those circumstances, would interfere and bring forward a measure upon the subject. Mr. G. F. YOUNG had been requeted to support the prayer of the petition. The House could hardly be aware of the severity which a particular clause of the Poor Laws' Act inflicted. By the 45th section it was made a misde meanour to detain pauper lunatics more than 14 days in the asylum, and the consequence was that they were sent to the poor house, and committed to the care of most improper persons, where the cruelties they suffered were enough to make one shudder. The petition was then laid on the table. IRISH CORPORATION REFORM. Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented petitions froln three parishes in the county of Meath, and two from Tralee, praying for Municipal Reform, and for the abolition of tithes. POST OFFICE. Mr. B. HOY presented a petition from the inhabitants of Southampton, complaining of certain regulations of the Post-office. He had given notice of a motion on the sub ject, but as it was the intention of Government that orders of the day should take precedence of motions, and as this was a complaint of a local grievance, he trusted that the House would indulge him for a short time— The SPEAKER begged that the Hon. Member would confine himself to the facts of the petition. Mr. B. HOY—The complaint of the petitioners was, that the charge made by the Post-office was 9d., instead of Bd. The Act of Parliament stated that for any distance above 70 and not exceeding 80 miles, there should be a charge of Bd. on all single letters. Now though the distance from Southampton to London did not exceed 78 miles, yet the Post-office charged 9d., and they justified it by stat ing that the route by which the mail was sent was more than 80 miles. Now if such power were left in the hands of the Secretary of the Post-office or the Post-master General, how wer , e they to know where a limit was to be pot to it? If it were in their power to Dena the mail by a circuitous route and to charge 1,5001. a-year extra, they might by and bye send the mails to Southampton by Devonport : if they had the authority in the one instance, they had it in the other. The petitioners also complained that the local Past-office was in an out-of-the-way part of the town, in a place that was inconvenient to the mer chants and the tradesmen.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He did not wish to make any attack whatever on Sir Francis Freeling, who statoA that he bad on every occa sion referred the matter to the Postmaster-General ; but he did complain that it should be in the power of the Se cretary of the Post-office to send a mail by any route he pleased, and to charge the inhabitants of a town 2,000/. or 3,000/. extra. He trusted the Government would direct their attention to the subject. The petition was signed by the Mayor and all the respectable inhabitants of South ern p ton. Dr. BO WRING presented a petition signed by the King's engraver and others, which he moved should be re ferred to the Committee on Arts, complaining that the in stitutions of the country were opposed to that consideration and respect which the Arts were entitled to. FACTORIES. Mr. BROTHERTON presented several petitions from Manchester and Blackburne in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill. The Hon. Member stated that one of the petitions from Blackburne showed that the " Schoolmaster" was sadly wanted there, for out of 108 signatures attached to the pe tition, 107 were crosses.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH presented a peti tion fbrom an individual formerly physician to Cork-street Hospital, Dublin, complaining of the regulation which prevented the admission of patients labouring under cholera. TRADE WITH JAVA. Mr. P. M. STEWART had a petition to present of some importance, to which he begged to call the attention of the House. It was from 150 merchants and manufac turers of Glasgow, complaining of a violation of the arti cles of the treaty of 1814, by which the Island of Java was ceded to tile Dutch. By the stipulations of that treaty, all articles were to be admitted duty free under the Dutch flag, and at a duty of 6 per cent., if under the British flag. putch cottons were now admitted free, while ours were charged with a duty of 25 per cent. The prayer of the petition was that the treaty might be carried into effect, and that the House would advise the Crown to see that done, and that compensation should be granted to all Bri tish subjects who had paid the high duties since 1824. The case was thus :—ln 1811 Java was taken, being then a French province. It was restored in 1814, without any recompense. It was then settled upon a system of free trade to all the world, and England, as of course, almost took the whole, or nearly so, of the trade. In 1818 the jealousy of Holland against this country commenced, and then they raised the duties to a great extent.— (Hear.) Dutch goods were raised to 8 per cent., and others to 16 per cent. Still England nearly mo nopolized the trade. In 1824 the Dutch began to cultivate their manufacturing interests, and then the Dutch goods were admitted free, while others were charged with a duty of 16 per cent. The SPEAKER put it to the Hon. Member whether the subject was not one that ought to be brought forward in the shape of a motion. Mr. P. M. STEWART said that the conduct of the Dutch Government was a direct infraction of the treaty entered into by the King of the Netherlands. The peti tion prayed that the flag should be made a regulation of principle. Mr. EWART presented a similar petition from the merchants of Liverpool. Mr. B. HOY said the petitioners seemed to assume that the King of Holland was bound by the treaty that had been entered into by the King of the Netherlands, but he very much doubted whether he was so or not. _ _ _ Lord PiiL MERSTOI4 said the Dutch had entered into certain stipulations respecting the trade of the Island which they had not adhered to ; but he was satisfied, on a proper representation being made to that Government, they would carry the provisions of the treaty into effeot• THE LORDS' AMENDMENTS. Mr. HINDLEY presented petitions from Warrington, and other places, calling upon the House of Commons not to accede to the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Muni cipal Bill, and stating their opinion that the Lords should be elected. Sir W:GEARY presented a petition in favour of the Lords' Amendments. FACTORIES BILL. Mr. G. F. YOUNG presented a petition from Ashton under-Line against Mr. P. Thomson's Factory Bill. The petitioners prayed for a Ten Hours' Bill. Mr. PALMER presented a petition from bank ers, merchants and traders, connected with the city of London in favour of the Lords' amendments. The petition was signed by more than 3,000 persons, all of them deeply engaged in commercial pursuits. To the commerce of the country this nation was indebted for its great superiority over all other nations ; and he, therefore, trusted that the petition would meet with the favourable attention of the House. _ _ ---- -- ---- - POOR-LAWS ACT. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from certain rate-payers of the parish of Chipping-Onger, praying for further remuneration to Surgeons under the Poor-Laws Act. SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the Uni versity of St. Andrew's, praying that in the Copyright Act an equal measure of justice would be meted out to Scot land with this country, and professing their inability to un derstand how 5001. could be allowed to the English Uni versities, and only 150/. to the University of St. Andrew's. REGISTRATION BILLS. The NOBLE LORD also presented a petition from the Town Clerks of Portsmouth and Portsea, stating that the entire of their income depended upon fees, and praying for adequate compensation, in case the Bill for the Registration of Births and Marriages should pass. CORPORATION REFORM BILL. Mr. WEST presented a petition from Dublin, signed by 2,700 persons, in favour of the Lords' Amendments in the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill. The O'CONNOR DON presented a petition from Longford, and another from the County of Roscommon, praying for the abolition of tithes, and an equal measure of Corporate Reform to Ireland. TURNPIKE TRUSTS ACT. Mr. KEARSLEY presented a petition from Wigan, praying for some alteration in this Act. NEWSPAPER STAMP RETURNS. Mr. EWART presented a petition from the proprietors of the Liverpool Mercury, complaining of great errors made in the stamp returns with regard to their paper— stating that they were very injurious to them, and calcu lated to mislead the public. LORDS' AMENDMENTS IRISH MUNICIPAL BILL. Mr. SHEPPARD presented a petition from Frome in favour of the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Corporation Bill, and praying the House to repudiate every attempt to undermine the Constitution of that Right Honourable House.—(lronical cheering.) DR. MULHOLLA.ND. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said he had a petition to present from Dr. Mulholland, which he had not formerly an opportunity to present. OPPRESSION IN IRELAND—TITHES. Mr. HENRY GRATTAN begged to know if there was any truth in the report that a person named Cooney had been arrested by the police under a writ of rebellion, and brought up to Dublin heavily ironed, having been in the mean time employed in breaking stones in the gaol, although afflicted with the measles? Lord J. RUSSELL said when his Hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland was in his place he would pro bably be able to give an answer to the question. COUNTY RATES: Mr. HUME presented a petition complaining of the excessive amount of County Rate, also a petition on the subject of Sewers. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he felt it his duty to move that the Orders of the Day should have prece dence after the Ist of July. It was most advisable to send all Bills from that House to the Lords before August, lest a ground might be affordedfor postponing them till next session. After afew observations from M. HUME and other Members, the proposition was agreed to. Mr. POULTER moved that the House do meet to morrow at 12 o'clock, on the Poole Corporation Bill. Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection to the motion, but he thought it would be very desirable that on disputed questions Committees should not have leave to sit again.— Agreed to. REGISTERING BIRTHS AND MARRIGES. On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, these Bills were postponed till to-morrow, on the understanding that they should have precedence. _ _ REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the House resolved itself into Committee on this Bill. In answer to a question from Sir JAMES GRAHAM respecting the right of persons, being borough electors, to vote for counties, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he could not tell what the original intention of the framers of the Bill might be, but it appeared to him that a good deal might be said on both sides. Sir J. GRAHAM moved a. declaratory clause to get rid of mushroom voters. Mr. NVARBURTON objected to the proposition. After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAI4 and Mr. Goa -ING the gallery was cleared for a division, when there ap peared— For Sir J. Graham's amendment Against it 133 Majority agliwt Sir J. Graham's amendment 33 The Committee then proceeded to the further conside ration of the Bill. Sir R. PEEL took occasion to observe that more ad vances had been made in the course of the present Session for conferring legislative authority on subordinate persons, than he ever recollected to have taken place in the course of any preceding session. —(Hear, hear.) He should now give notice that, on the bringing up of the Report, he would feel it his duty to call the attention of the House to that part of the Bill which placed the appointment of the revising barristers directly in the Crown. The practice was highly objectionable. If, however, the appointment was to be vested in the Crown, he would think it much better that the appointing of the revising barristers should reef with the Chancellor, rather than with the Secretary for the Home Department. The clause, after some further discussion, was withdrawn. Sir J. GRAHAM thought the proposition of the Hon. Member to constitute a new Court of Review for the pur poses of this Bill an extravagant one, and suggested that as the Court of Review in bankruptcy had little or nothing to do, and as it was in every respect a Court fully competent for such a purpose, that it should exercise the functions of the Court of Review, proposed by the Hon. Member. Mr. WARBURTON would not object to the proposi tion if they could have one Judge instead of three, as in the Court of Review in Bankruptcy. Mr. CRAWFORD objected that the Judges of the Court of Review in Bankruptcy were paid out of the bankrupts' funds, which would be an improper mode of payment for the Judges of a Court of registration revision. Sir R. PEEL preferred one Judge, if he were a Judge of a high quality in a legal point of view ; but be thought it would be almost charity to the Court of Review in Bank ruptcy to give them something to do. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped that soon the Court of Review would have something to do more germane to the object of their creation. He did not think the de cision of one Judge carried so much weight as that of three. Sir R. PEEL—Yes, but suppoto your three Judges should not be unanimous ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It was a saying of Lord Eldon's that the judgment of the Court was more to be relied on when divided than when unanimous, for it showed at least that they had fully considered both sides of the question. The conversation here dropped, and the remaining clauses were agreed to. The House then resumed, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow (this day.) TITHE COMMUTATION BILL. Lord J. RUSSEI.4I... moved the third reading of this Bill, and stated his intention to propose two new one for the purpose of regulating th e mo d e i n which tithe of copsewo o d w a s t o be recover e d, an d th e o th er , to give power to the occupiers of land to deduct the amount of the rent charged from the owners of land. The clauses having been proposed, Sir ROBERT PEEL said—lt will be remembered that early in the session I introduced a Bill identical in principle with that which I introduced last year, when I had the honour to ac t as a Mi n i ster of the Crown. My object in proposing that Bill was to promote as much as possible vo luntary commutations, but it at the same time did not ex clude compulsory ones. That Bill I preferred to the Bill of the Noble Lord ; that Bill I still prefer. The reason why I objected to the Bill of the Noble Lord was, that it made the compulsory commutations come on too quickly, without allowing fair time for trial to the voluntary princi ple. The que s ti on f or me to decide is—whether I ought to continue my opposition to the measure of the Noble Lord, and encourage others also to oppose it. On the whole I am hound to say that I do not find such material difference between this measure and mine, or such a presumption of injustice in the probable operation of the Bill as should induce me to withhold my assent and continue in oppo sition to it.—(Cheers.) It proceeds on the principle of my Bill, so far as concerns voluntary commutation. I pro posed that two Commissioner *should be 4: pointed by the Crown, and one to watch over the interests of the Church, to be nominated by the Archbishops. The Bill of the Noble Lord does not contain this. With regard to volun tary commutation, the Bill of the Noble Lord only allows the period up to Oct o b er , 1837, for entering into them. I was anxious fora furthe r ex t ens i on of the time in cases where it was specified that there was good reason to hope that voluntary composition was likely to be entered into, and that in such cases there should be no obligation on the Commissioners to enforce the com mu t at i on. The Noble Lord assumes in his Bill that the value of tithes taken in composition for the last seven years, or in kind where there was no composition, should be th e ru l e b y which to regulate all future commutation. Th e ru l e was open to very strong objections. Ido not, h owever, find that any party anxious for the interests of the Church have remonstrated against the measure. On the contra r y, there seems to be a disposition in favour of this settlement. SUGAR DUTIES_ HOUSE OF LORDS, JuNz 27. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1836. The Bill of the Noble Lord has been received by the House with as much general good-will as any other pro position which I remember during the session. Retaining, as I do, a preference for my own Bill, and wishing to sug gest to the Noble Lord a further extension of the time for entering into compositions as the basis of commutation, still, as I see that there is a strong disposition in favour of this measure, I shall not interrupt its progress, more espe cially as I look upon it as a practical experiment with re spect to the final adjustment of the tithe question. Mr. HUME was satisfied that the Bill would be highly advantageous to the Church, and no part of it more so than that which rendered the commutation compulsory. This was what was wanted in the Irish Tithe Bill. If, how ever, the 37th and 38th clauses were allowed to remain the agitation of the tithe question would soon be renewed. Ali. WARBURTON did not despair, and at no distant time, to see tithes totally abolished, the Church provided for out of the. Consolidated Fund, and the Corn Laws abo lished. This was the only way in which the question could be finally and satisfactorily adjusted. Sir R. INGLIS said that, notwithstanding the resist ance to tithes in Ireland, their payment was now enforced by the power of the law, and he should be sorry to think that law would not have the same power in England. He objected to the basis of the commutation, as not being a fair one. Mr. BE NETT said no one ciould decide by the Bill what was garden and what agricultural produce. If this obscure clause were suffered to remain it would be well to have the Bill rejected in hopes of a better one. It was, however, creditable to the Church that there had been no petition aigainst the Bill. After a few words from Mr. Parrott, Lord Ebrington, Mr. H. Curteis, Mr. Baines, and Captain Pechell, Lord J. RUSSELL expressed his pleasure that the Bill was so near its last stage in that House. He certainly was of opinion, in opposition to the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), that the provisions of the Bill should be compulsory. The clergy were entitled to much credit for their forbearance and their disposition not to interpose any obstruction for their own advantage.—(Loud cheers.) The Bill did not give any unfair advantage to the clergy or to the landed interest, but dealt equally with all. The Bill was then read a third time. It was proposed to add a clause, giving the power of dis traint in the levy of tithes. After a desultory conversation the House divided, when there appeared— Ayes Noes 39 Majority OS Mr. HUME moved that clauses 37 and 38 be expunged. Mr. BENETT seconded the motion. Mr. HODGES opposed the motion. Mr. WARBURTON supported the motion. Sir R. PEEL said, if the Hon. Gentlemen's motion were agreed to, land hereafter cultivated for hops and market produce might pay no tithe ; thus holding out a premium for the cultivation of land to those possessors wholly unfit. As, then, the principle of the Bill was a broad one, and the objection of the Hon. Member ap plied to so small a quantity of land only, he (Sir R. Peel) did not see why the progress of the measure should be impeded. If hereafter greater protection could be afforded, that might be done. Mr. LENNARD opposed the clauses. Sir R. PRICE supported the motion. Colonel P. THOMPSON supported the motion. Mr. CURTEIS said that the retention of these clauses would compel many Members, from a regard for consis tency and a wish to maintain the principle of the Bill, to vote against the measure. After a few words from Mr. BLAMIRE and Mr. T. DU N CO M BE, Lord J. RUSSELL denied that the clauses were new, as they had been introduced and printed so long back as the 18th of May. It was erroneous to suppose that the tithepayer was not to be benefitted equally with the tithe receiver ; but it was clear that the opponents of the clause differed among themselves as to what the operation of the Bill would be. He therefore hoped the Committee would reject the amendment. After a few words from Mr. WARBURTON and Mr. GORING the House divided. The numbers were— Ayes Noes Majority for the clause The remaining clauses having been agreed to, the Bill was rod a third time. On the que3tion that the Bill do pass, Mr. HUME proposed that the word " partial" should be introduced into the preamble, so that it would read, not as at present, " for the commutation,' but " for the partial commutation of tithes." The amendment was negatived without a division, and the Bill passed. The House then resolved itself into committee on the Sugar Duties Bill. The several clauses, after some conversation, were to, and, the House having resumed, the report was ordered to be received to-morrow. _ _ The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at One o'Cloek. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat at the usual hour, Several Bills were then advanced a stage. A Message from the Commons brought up the London d Cambridge Railway Bill ; the Eastern Counties Rail way Bill ; the Parrott Navigation Bill ; the Hayle Rail way Bill ; and the Herne Bay Pier with the Lords amendments agreed to. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND). Lord HATHERTON presented a petition from the town council of Walsall against the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Municipal Bill ; and a petition from the Stafford shire Potteries against the Manchester and Cheshire Rail way. Lord DARTMOUTH presented a petition from 2,400 inhabitants of Birmingham in favour of the Lords' Amend ments to the Irish Municipal Bill. Lord HATHERTON begged to ask if that petition had been agreed to at a public meeting? Lord DARTMOUTH—I believe it was not. The Marquis of BRISTOL presented a petition from Bury St. Edmunds in favour of the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Municipal Bill. Lord RADNOR had received a letter from a person named Francis Baring, informing him that the petition just presented by the Noble Marquis had emanated from the National Conservative Association, and that the signature had been obtained to it by private solicitation. The Marquis of BRISTOL knew nothing how the petition had been got up. Lord DUNCANNON presented a petiticti from Bridgenorth, against the Lords' amendments. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from Belfast signed by 12,000 inhabitants, in favour of the Lords' amendments. Msirquisses LONDONDERRY and DOWNSHIRE severally supported the prayer of the petition. Lord LYNDHURST presented petitions to the same effect from Frome, Oldham, Wigan, Dudley, and other places. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from the merchants, bankers and others of the city of Lon don, in favour of the Lords' amendments, and deprecating the systematic attacks which were made on the indepen dence of that House. The Noble Duke did not wonder at the alarm manifested by the petitioners, but from what he knew of their Lordships, he was convinced that they would not allow themselves to give way upon any fear—any appre hension of danger with which they were threatened—nor would they be forced to take any cd'urse which was not dic tated by wisdom and a due sense of justice. Lord LYNDHURST, on three occasions, presented petitions to the same effect from Lincoln, Lambeth, Dart ford, Leicester, Devizes, Warrington, and Haverford west. On the last petition being presented, , The Marquis of LANSDO WNE said he had been asked to state to the House that a public meeting had been held in that town, and the petition on the other side was agreed to by a large majority—after which seven or eight persons went round with the present petition, and obtained signatures. The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented a petition from Greenwich, Deptford, and Blackheath, in favour of the Lords' amendments. Viscount MELBOURNE presented a petition from Barnstaple in favour of the Commons' amendments. Lord ROLLE was acquainted with the feeling of that town, and he was sure that all the respectability of it were in favour of their Lordships' House ,which he would maintain for the few years which he had yet to live. Lord FITZGERALD presented petitions from several parishes in Dublin in favour of the Lords' amendments. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition signed by 5,000 operatives and others of Leeds to the same effect. At the request of the Noble Lord the petition was read at the table. The Earl of RADNOR begged to explain that the pe tition to which lie had formerly alluded was got up a t th e instigation of a C onserva ti v e Society, in opposition to a public meeting, at which a petition to a contrary effect was unanimously agreed to. He wished to know what steps were taken to inform the operatives of Leeds that this Bill would abandon the Protestants of Ireland to an anti-Pro testant and anti-Christian faction? _ Lord WHARNCLIFFE apprehended that the people of Leeds were not so ignorant but that they knew this Bill would give an immense power to the Catholic party. The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition in favour of the amendments made by their Lordships' House in the Irish Municipal Bill, from the parish of Kilmaine. The Earl of HADDINGTON had a petition to pre• sent from Dublin, most numerously and respectably signed, against the Bill, as sent up from the other House.--(Hear, hear.) The petitioners expressed great alarm at the provisions contained in the Bill, the effect of which they conceived would be to transfer all power in these Corporations to the hands of those who were ex clusive in religion, and hostile to the English connection, viz., to the priests of the Catholic Church. It ought to be observed that in all the petitions from Irish towns, and from Ireland generally, no objection was made to the abolition of existing Corporations. When they considered what the early ob ject of these Corporations was, and what the feelings of the Protestants were towards them, they deserved considerable credit for their forbearance. When their Lordships re turned the Bill as amended to the other House of Parlia ment, great attempts were made to excite agitation ; but in order to do so it was necessary to mix up this question with that of abolition of tithes ; and he concluded, seeing that agitation had not been so powerful and formidable as those who undertook to raise it might undoubtedly expect, might it not be hoped that the Catholics of Ireland were satisfied with the abolition of Corporations, and that they were very willing to forego the blessings which the reconstruction of the Bill by the other House of Parliament offered to their acceptance. The Earl of WICKLOW presented a similar petition from a parish in Dublin. The Noble Lord concurred with the prayer of the petition ; for however much he approved of the principle of the Bill, there were details connected with itilthat could not meet with his assent ; and when be found there was no chance of making amendments that met with his approval, and as he could not agree with the amendments proposed by their Lordships, he thought it better to abstain from interfering in the discussion upon the question.—(Cries of " Hear.") The utmost evil that could result was, that the Municipal bodies of Ireland were likely to continue in their present state. All concurred in the opinion, that much and great abuse existed ih those Corporations, and when he said he hoped those Corporations would exist for another year, he trusted he should not be considered as upholding their existence, but only anxious that they should exist for another year, rather than be abolished altogether. He sincerely hoped that Mi nisters would during the time that should elapse between the end of the present, and the commencement of the next Session, give their full attention to the subject, in order that they might frame a measure that would preserve these institutions, which he considered so necessary to the happiness and welfare of the people. Lord STRANGFORD presented a similar petition from the parish of St. Catharine, in the City of Dublin. The Duke of SUTHERLAND presented a petition from a parish in Staffordshire, praying their Lordships to agree to the Amendments made by the House of Commons in the Irish Municipal Reform Bill. On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the Sale of Bread Bill was read a third time. IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL.— (LORDS' AMENDMENTS.) Lord MELBOURNE—I now rise, my Lords, for the purpose of calling your Lordships' attention to the amend. ments that have been made by the other House on the amended Bill that was sent down to them. The great ex tent of the amendments that were made in the first instance by your Lordships, and again, the great extent of the number of amendments that have been made by the other House of Parliament on the present Bill, have necessarily caused considerable time to elapse before this matter could be brought with all ne cessary information under your Lordships' attention. My Lords, I cannot say that I regret this period has elapsed—indeed, I cannot do otherwise than rejoice at this delay, because it has allowed anything like ill-feeling and anger to die away, and which, under any circumstances, I should expect from your Lordships ; and under the circum stances I have stated, I expect with the utmost confidence, that your Lordships will give to these amendments, that calm, that full, that impartial consideration, which their importance, and the authority from which they are derived, clearly demand at your hands. I entirely agree with what fell from a Noble Duke on the presentation of a petition in a former period of this evening, —that you will not suffer yourselves to be intimidated by clamour—that you will not suffer yourselves in any way to be affected by threats ; that you will not suffer yourselves in any respect whatsoever to have your judgments biassed, warped, or irri tated by any recent propositions which may have been made, but which, in my opinion, fall in their very statement by their own absurdity, and therefore require no further allusion from me. But, my Lords, while we express this wish on the one hand, we hope, on the other, that your Lordships will not suffer your elves to be so affected by any considerations of this nature, or by any observations that may have been made, as to be in duced not to give these amendments that full, that calm, and that impartial consideration which they deserve. If you shall find, upon 'consideration, that you have taken a hasty and an erroneous view of this subject, you will, I am sure, be the first to act the manly part of retracting what you feel to be a miataka, ...di or ovita.iag a rcaainar.3 to yield to reetcznrica whirl b appear to you to be 'nom sound, more just, and better founded. —( Hear, hear.) With these few preliminary observations, my Lordy, I will proceed to call your attention to these amendments. I think it is impossible but that you must admit the fairness and justice of the very calm and temperate statement with which the Commons have prefaced them. I think, too, that your Lordships must feel, if these proceed ings should really terminate and conclude in a difference be tween the two Houses, that you have commenced this war fare rather in a rough, rather in a rude, and rather in an offen sive manner. My Lords, you sent down to the other House. of Parliament a Bill totally changed in its nature, altered in all its provisions, changed in its title, altered entirely in the whole of its principles, bearing no resemblance or similitude to the Bill sent up to you from the House of Commons except in its subject matter, and excepting so far that it is also a Bill having reference to the subject of Municipal Corporations. It is impossible that your Lordships can do other than feel that this is a very strong mode of proceeding, and one which, if it were adopted towards your Lordships, I feel quite certain, not only that you would refuse to acquiesce in, but that you would reject with the utmost indignation.—( Hear, hear.) If your Lordships do not feel on this subject that it is a strong measure you have taken—if you do not feel that it is a mea sure in a great degree offensive in its character—if you do not feel that it is one in which you could not expect the other House of Parliament to acquiesce --then, my Lords, I will only say, that I view with considerable surprise, and can very imper fectly understand, the nature of the judgments which arrive at such a conclusion. I have only now to state the amendments which the Commons have proposed to your Lordships in this Bill ; those amendments are so very di s tinctly, c l ear ly, suc cincty, and fairly stated in the concluding reasons alleged by the Commons, that I cannot give your Lordships a better general idea of them than by reading the para graph to which I allude :—" In the Bill, as now amended, the Commons have consented to confine the esta blishment of Town-councils to twelve considerable cities and towns, of which their wealth and importance render them well suited to such system of local government." Carrick fergus, I understand, possesses considerable wealth and pro perty, and is, moreover, an assize town. It is for these reasons that these towns have been selected for the purpose of having established in them those institutions which we contend are essential to the interests of the country at large, and which we contend are more particularly essential to the interests of Ire land, where local government is more particularly required. " The Commons have further provided for the local govern ment of twenty cities and towns of lesser extent and popula tion by applying to them the enactments of a statute specially relied upon in the amendments of the Lords." Seventeen of these towns are Parliamentary boroughs; three of them do not return Members to Parliament, but they are, I under stand, in point of wealth and importance, next to the other towns ; and therefore the Commons have thought proper to include them in this schedule, thereby insuring to them the benefit of local and municipal government, free from all the inconvenience and disadvantages of the Act to which they refer. The provisions of that Act being left to the rate-payers ' to carry into execution were, as your Lordships know, very seldom adopted at all. You are very probably aware, from a perusal of the amendments, of the measures which are proposed to render the adoption of the Act compulsory, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to detail them. In additiOn to empowering two justices of the peace to call a meeting of persons who are in fact compelled to adopt the provisions of the Act, there are in the amendments of the Commons others of great importance, including one in re ference to the appointment of coroners, which, contrary; to all former precedent, is vested by your Lordships' Bill in the hands of the Lord. Lieutenant. But as the question now is, whether your Lordships will adopt the general principle of these amendments, or whether you will reject them, I will not waste your time with minor details, which, if you arc prepared to adopt the general principle, will be easily settled hereafter, and which, if you are not prepared to adept it, are wholly unnecessary to be repeated by me. This question has been already so very amply and fully discussed in so many de bates in both Houses of Parliament, and the grounds on which we have argued the question are so Very distinctly, eleatlY, and forcibly laid down in the reasons alleged by the Com mons, that it would be only wasting your Lordships time if I were to do more than briefly recapitulate the very strong rea sons which should induce you to accede to these amendments. In the first place, your Lordships amendments adopt a differ ent principle with respect to Ireland from that which prevails in any other part of his Majesty's dominions; different from that which prevails in England, different from that which pre vails in Scotland, different from that which prevails, I appre hend, in any part of the colonies in his Majesty's domi nions. In adopting that principle, my Lords, you are taking a step which is undoubtedly hurtful and mortifying to the feelings of the Irish people. Now I ask you is that wise or prudent—is that wise or prudent in what you your selves represent to be the s t a t e o f Ireland at present ? Is it wise or prudent, when the wounds of the people of that coun try are just beginning, as it were, in a certain degree, to cica trise, to tear them open afresh, as you must inevitably do, by this course of proceeding ?—( Cheers.) Even if your Lord ships' measures were in some degree preferable to those which we propose, would it be wise to obtain them at this sacrifice ? —(Cheers.) Is it, I ask you, wise or prudent to do that which, although it may not create a great feeling at the pre sent time, which, although it may not create any very violent feeling at this present moment (as a Noble Friend of mine thinks, whether justly or not, I will not say), still will hereafter be referred to, and looked back upon and quoted as an instance in which the British Legislature has undervalued and in- suited the feelings of the people of Ireland, by making a marked difference between them and the people of any other country ?—(Cheers.) In the next place, even if you give up the advantages of local Municipal Government, which we ask you to preserve, will you give up the advantege of distinc tion—will you give up the advantage of authority—will you give up the advantage of influence, all of which we have al ready argued, and I say justly argued, are more highly prized in Ireland than in any other part of the King's dominions ? And further, my Lords, will you depart most plainly and de cisively from the principles of the Act for the removal of the Catholic disabilities ?—( Loud cheers.) My Lords, the main principle of that Act was, that every office of distinction, every office of power, every office of emolument, should be thrown open to the whole people of the country without any " distinction of religion..—(Loud cheers.) What do your Lordships do ?—(Hear.) You immediately make a dis tinction, and found it most plainly and distinctly upon the re ligious differences which exist in Ireland.--(Cheers.)—My Lords, I am surprised that the Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst) who brought forward the amendments in this House should have adopted these principles. The Noble and Learned Lord, as we well know, has held very different opinions at different times on the subject of these Roman Catholic disabilities. On the 6th of March 1827, the Noble and Learned Lord, then Master of the Rolls, made a speech against concessions to the Roman Catholics in the House of Commons ; again, on the 10th of June, 1828, the Noble and Learned Lord, sitting on the Woolsack in this House, as Lord Chancellor, made another speech also, against the conces sion of the Catholic Claims. The first of these speeches ap peers to me to be very cursorily and imperfectly reported ; the second is reported more clearly and forcibly, and seems to be sanctioned by better authority. Both these speeches go very strongly against the principle of the proposed conces sion ; the second puts very strongly the danger of concession without adequate security ; and it was on this ground that the Noble and Learned Lord refused his 'assent to the measure. On the 3d of April, 1829, the Noble and Learned Lord, still sitting as Chancellor upon the Woolsack, makes a most deci sive speech in favour of the concession of these claims ; he puts them upon the broadest principles, and boldly states " the Roman Catholic is in my mind in no manner incapable of exercising the privileges of a free citizen in a free state. His opinions regarding civil power and civil matters accord with those of other men ; and in no manner, therefore, do they in capacitate him from discharging the duties of a legislator." My Lords, if they do not incapacitate him from discharging the duties of a legislator, they surely do not incapacitate him from discharging the duties imposed upon him by this Bill. —(Cheers.) In mentioning the Noble and Learned Lord's speeches, I have no intention whatever of reproaching him for the suddenness with which he changed his opinions • such a reproach would come with but an ill grace from anybody, but perhaps it would come peculiarly ill from me, for I have myself changed my opinions on great public questions ; I have felt it my duty to do so, without being actuated by any interested motives, and the allowance which I claim for myself I am per fectly ready to make for others. But what I have always ob served, and what I have always found relative to these in consistencies in public men—which, after all, are rather awkward features in a man's public life, which always afford points upon which attacks may be made, which always re quire defence, the more particularly as they generally wear at first rather a questionable aspect, and one difficult to be explained—what I have always observed, and found, my Lords, has been, that the error in conduct invariably is not in the second step, but in the first. The first change of opi nion is generally right ; it is generally founded upon sound principles ; it is generally called for by circumstances; but the error is in having rapidly, in early youth, or under the im pressions of party, or perhaps in deference to the authority of others, pledged yourself irrevocably and voluntarily to mea sures, to opinions, and to principles, which afterwards, on maturer consideration, and under altered circumstances, you find it impossible to support or maintain. What I complain of in the Noble and Learned Lord on the present occasion is, not that he changed his opinions rapidly, but that in all the arguments he now advances he seems disposed to recede from those sounder and better opinions which he professed in 1829, and to return to those which he held in 1828 and 1827. And, my Lords, whatever may be the dangers of Ireland at the present moment--whatever may be the feelings of the Roman Catholic population—whatever may be the power possessed by the Roman Catholic clergy—and whatever may be the manner in which they employ those powers, let the Noble and Learned Lord depend upon it that the remedy for those evils is to be found in other measures than in a return to anything like those exclusive principles which prevailed before 1829, and before the Act of 1793.—(Continued cheers.) My Lords, the Noble and Learned Lord, on a former occasion, made a speech which has excited a great deal of observation, both within and without the walls of this House. I wish to advert to it, not with reference to any ex pressions to which it may have given rise—not with the view of making any attack upon him, or of exciting anything like feelings of animosity or indignation on the present occasion ; but merely for the purpose of adverting, coolly and calmly, to what I conceive to have been his argument. The Noble and Learned Lord said—. We were told, when the Roman Catholic Relief Bill passed, that it would be perfectly ac quiesced in—that it would be completely and wholly satisfac tory, and that all would be peaceful and tranquil ; whereas, on the contrary, we have had more tumult than ever ; we have had measures most injurious to the Protestant religion ; we have had the spoliation of the Protestant Establish mpt.t , rvc haws had all the attack-a upon tithe; and now, at last, it has come to this—that the population of that country stand in array against each other, in a state of uncompromising hostility." My Lords, I must beg leave to say that I have some observations to make upon every stage of this speech. In the first instance, the Noble and Learned Lord says, "We were told," and so forth ; its if he had not himself, in the speech of 1829, to which I have before adverted, held out as strongly as anybody could a prospect of the peace and tranquillity which were to ensue from the passine- of that measure. My Lords, it is very natural, when people wish measures to be passed which they intend should operate as measures of conciliation, which they intend should be considered as a boon, that they should be inclined to exaggerate the effects of that boon ; and in speaking of such provisions they are apt to draw pictures of tranquillity and happiness which are not likely ever to be realized. But, my Lords, I confess I do not recollect any sound or distinct argument which was held out at that time from which it was to be inferred that the- measure would neces sarily be the immediate instrument of peace, satisfaction, and tranquillity.—(hear, hear, hear.) I ask your Lordships to reflect that it is out of the question that such results should have ensued from it, that it is totally contrary to the history of man, that it is totally contrary to the experience of ages that any such effect should have been caused by a measure which affected the situation of so large a portion of the population, and which was an admission into power of a vast number of persons who had been previously excluded from it. It would have been perfectly unnatural to expect that it should have done so at once, without any checks, without any changes, without any alterations. Look to our history, my Lords, look to those periods to which we now look back, with the greatest pleasure, satisfaction, and gratitude. Look to those events which are never mentioned in this House without praise and admiration, especially from many Noble Lords whom I see on the opposite side of the House. Consider the Reformation—consider the Revolution. Those events, when we look back upon them, diminish to a single occur rence ; but they were a series of frightful and tremendous events, notwithstanding. To the Reformation we all look back with the greatest satisfaction and gratitude. I, myself, am sincerely and devotedly attached to the principles of the Reformation ; I am sincerely and devotedly attached to the spirit of free inquiry and the right of private judgment__ principles which I consider characteristics of the Reformation —principles which I trust will be maintained by those from whom we have a right to claim their support ; although feel ings of a very different nature may show themselves in the bosom of the Church, or of the Universities.—(Loud cheers.) What, my Lords, were its immediate effects ? Bloodshed, civil discord, dreadful rebellion I rebellion in the eastern and western counties, rebellion in the Scottish counties that was successful for months, and superseded for a time the authority of the King of that day in this country. A series of events occurred, my Lords, which I will not recapitulate, but which render it to my mind perfectly clear, that the benefits of the Reformation were never really felt or established until the Revolution. This great event, certainly the bulwark and security of our liberties, if not the foundation of them, was at the moment the cause of a most dreadful state of political society—father against son, and son against father, and all the ills of a disputed succession. We may call that revolution bloodless in itself, but we must recol lect that it was purchased at the expense of two long, pro tracted, and bloody wars, under the effects of which we are suffering at the present day. My Lords, Ido not place Ca tholic Emancipation on the same level; but I consider it as an event of sufficiently similar character to justify me in say ing that, judging from history, it was not in human nature, nor was it to be expected, that things would at once subside into that state of peace and tranquillity, the non-result of which has, according to the Noble and Learned Lord, occa sioned so much disappointment and surprise.--(Cheering.) The Noble Lord mentions, among the evils which have flowed from the Catholic Emancipation Bill, the Church Tempora lities' Bill, and the diminution of the Church Establishment in Ireland. Lord LYNDIIURST—I doubt whether I ever said so. Viscount MELBOURNE—Does the Noble and Learned Lord retract it ? _ _ Lord LYNDHUR ST—I do not retract. I doubt that I ever said so. Viscount MELBOURNE—Of the Church Temporalities Bill, my Lords, I may say, in the first place, that it was an act of the Legislature ; and I believe the effects of that mea sure, notwithstanding the strong feelings that prevail in Ire land, have been in the highest degree salutary and beneficial. I believe that it has given the clergy more power and mor e e weight, and that they arc much more likely to support cause of religion now than they were before its passing.— (Cheers.) I declare solemnly, my Lords, that in this, and in all the measures I have introduced, or may propose, I have had no other object in view than that of relieving the Protes tant religion from that which evidently does not facilitate its progress, and which has been already sufficiently long tried, and applying the resources of the Establishment to means that may better conduce to the purification of the religion of the country.—(Cheers.) The Noble and Learned Lord, in the speech to which I refer, also alluded to the question of tithes, a most painful subject certainly, on which I will not further debate upon the present occasion. I will not ask you, my Lords, whether you might not have prevented much of this evil by seizing the opportunities which have been presented to you for that purpose. With respect to the Noble and. Learned Lord's last assertion, that the population of Ire land stand arrayed against each other in a state of uncom promising hostility, I believe that is a most exaggerated state ment, and one which is in no respect borne out by the real state of feeling in Ireland. The observations which were made by the Noble and Learned Lord were, as I have taken occa.- sion to say before, of the greatest importance, from his well known abilities and the station he has filled in this country. I have therefore thought it right, without the least degree of asperity or acrimony, and without the slightest reference to any expressions that might appear to form a ground for other observations, to state in what respect, and why, I differ from the Noble and Learned Lord on this occasion. My Lords, I have already stated the great principle and the grounds on which the Commons have founded their amendments. I have already stated that your dignity, your weight, your influence, your audnority in t!iis country, are sufficiently fixed and founde d upon all the advantages w Nobody can injure it, my but yourselves.—(Loud lich result from your character, cheers.) The possession of present p,?wer and the right of _ individual property are apt to mislead all men. My Lords, I implore you not to be led away, by the undisputed sway you possess in this House, to mistake your station with respect t° the other House of Parliament.—( Cheers.) I beg leave to call to your recollection, for the purpose, if possible, of opening your eyes a little, some facts which I really think seem to have escaped your memory. In the year 1834 the Government of this country was dissolved by circumstances which it is un necessary for me to repeat. The Noble Lords coming into office chose to do that which I shall ever consider as a most violent and unjustifiable act, of which, if I were in their sites-. tion, I would not have been the author—the violent and unjus tifiable act of dissolving the Parliament. My Lords, I say th a t if they could not form their Government withcut dissolving that House of Commons, they were bound to give up the attempt , However, they did dissolve that Parliament. A new Parliament was chosen, under all the power and influence, whatever that may be (much exaggerated, I believe), which the possession of Government gives. They met that Parliament ; they were in a minority of seven; they were in a minority of ten; they were in a minority of thirteen. This year their minority com menced at about forty-five, and it had grown in the last division to nearly double the number. Now I ask your Lordships to consider what has been the cause of this pro gression? I ask you to consider whether it is not owing to your own imprudence—whether it is not owing to your own misconduct—whether it is not owing to your own blindness — whether it is not owing to the manner in which you seek to separate yourselves from the whole body of the people—from the manner in which you have tried to do everything that is unpopular, and abstained from doing anything that has in it the elements of generosity and popularity?—( Loud cheers.) I wish you to consider whether this is not the cause ; and, my Lords, it will be well for you to think of the causes which have occasioned this retrograde movement in the other House of Parliament, while, at the same time, it is very remarkable that the whole of the intermediate elections have, for the most part, been in your favour,—( Loud cheers.) There is another point, my Lords, to which I wish to refer. We arc often told, and we have been frequently informed in the course of the present session, that you have with you, and we have against us, the great majority of the intelligence, the power, the weight, and the importance of the country; that you have with you the majority of the gentry; that you have with you the majority of the clergy ; 'that you have with you, distinctly, the voice of the two universities. My Lords, I will not deny that this may be the truth ; nor will I stop to inquire what really is the truth of the matter. But if you have this support, I implore your Lordships not to be too confident, and not to rely upon it too far. I have the greatest respect for the majority of the gentry; I have the greatest respect for the gentry, of this country ; I have the greatest respect for the clergy ; I have no disrespect for, nor do I feel anything of ill-will towards, the universities ; but depend upon it, nil Lords, these interests are not omnipotent in this country; nor were they omnipotent when other interests, such as those of towns and cities, the interests of commerce and manufactures , the interests of the Dissenters, and the general opinion of the people, were all as nothing compared with what they are now. —( Cheers.) My Lords, great measures have been carried in opposition to their interests ; whole dynasties have been changed, families have been placed, aye, and maintained, upon the throne in opposition to the majority of the gentry ; most distinctly and certainly in opposition to the great majority of the clergy, and in opposition to the decided opinion of the two I.lniversities.—( Cheers.) My Lords, I only pray you not to rely too much upon this opinion ; I earnestly entreat you to unite together the interests and feelings of all classes of so ciety • and I entreat you to take the first step towards this desirable result by acceding to these amendments which have been sent up from the Commons, and thus establishing . your weight, your authority, your power, and your dignity in the feelings and affections of the people of Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) The Noble Viscount concluded by moving that the amendments be now taken into consideration. ......_............... .... ....... ______ ....._ __________ Lord L YNDHUR ST said that the Noble Viscount, in stead of calling their Lordships' attention to the details of the amendments contained in the paper on their Lordships' table, had thought proper to employ the greater portion of his speech in a personal attack upon him (Lord Lyndhurst) for his con duct upon the present occasion.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Viscount had recalled to their Lordship's attention the pro ceedings which he (Lord Lyndhurst) had taken with respect to the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and he had pointed out for approbation, as he understood, his (Lord Lyndhurst's) conduct with respect to that measure. Ile ( Lord Lyndhurst) could only say that he acted, in the course which he pursued, with men of as much honour and attachment to the Constitution, as deeply read in the laws and history of the country, and as indepen dent in their motives and conduct as auy body of men that ever existed in this country. The Noble Lord stated that the con sequ,nces which resulted from that measure were contrary to his (Lord Lyndhurst's) expectation. The consequences which had resulted from that measure, and the conduct of thaw who had been connected with that measure, be con fessed had disappointed him, and he could not illustrate what he meant better than by recalling their Lordships' attention to a quotation then made with respect to the consequences and results which would follow the adoption of that measure :--- --" Quorum simul alba nautis Stella refulsit, Defluit saxis agitatus humor: Concidunt venti, fugiuntque nubes, Et minax (quod sic voluere) ponto Unda fecumbit." That was the quotation then made, as illustrative of the con sequences which would result from the adoption of the mea sure ; and he would appeal to their Lordships whether the consequences had not been contrary to the sense of the pas sage to which he had just referred ? Step by step altera tions had been made in the Protestant Church of Ireland, directly contrary to pledges at that time given as an cocoa' ragement to pursue the course which was then adopted.-- ( Hear, hear.) The Noble Viscount then passed on to sal , that at the time the late Government entered into office, il l 1334, they pursued a most unjustifiable course by advising hl Majesty to dissolve Parliament. This the Noble Viscount had stated, but he had given no reason in support of it. Wha t, he (Lord Lyndhurst) would ask, could be more regular, "T re e proper, or more in accordance with the principles of a 11 1, Constitution than when his Majesty made a change is his councils, that an appeal should be made to the feelings of r people of England to sanction the act done by his Majes t y • it (Hear.) The Noble Viscount said that Noble Lords eag not to submit to intimidation or threats, and yet a great r.... of tion of the close of the Noble Viscount's speech consiste .th nothing but carefully implied threats, to fill Noble Lords e ,„ apprehension as to the consequences of the course which ti' t d c , were pursuing. The Noble Viscount seemed all al°llgapnt have considered the other House of Parliament as rePr e :i o a ing the people, and that their Lordships were, at lea s ` Auld certain degree, to bend to it. He (Lord Lyndhurst) vv°tca beg leave to say that their Lordships' House also represe l l. A the nation—that though their Lordships were summoned ":„.„ different way, they no less represented the nation than 1." - ,, House of Commons—( Hear, hear)—and he believed, at ta t :: moment, whatever might be the opinion of the Noble Viscou ... they as fairly, as fully, and as sincerely, represented the op o l i nions, the sentiments, and the feelings of the great body the __l. the people as the representatives of the people in the o 9_e n ' House. The Noble Viscount had employed a great Pero ° of his speech, not in dealing with the question before t.ht.e House, but with reference to another topic, namely, 3 " reference to what had fallen from him (Lord Lyndhurst) on a former occasion. He was extremely desirous sub ject—he h o e few was observations to toredtheeemiriuLgortdbsehippsleudpgoen wthbitisnebsure the to gave with reference to it, and he owed it in some degree their Lordships to do it, because, as what ho uttered on s ,__ occasion alluded to was not reproved by their Lordships, he felt that the attack directed against him was also in a certain a l: degree directed against their Lordships. First as to h m i em.. cusers. The first of his accusers in order of time was a after ber of the other House of Parliament, who, immediolltyo the Bill went down to the other House, was h s e e a n r t” and great Ire land as at apostle of agitation— laughter)—for the purpose of c Li H ng ear ; country. Meetings were called, ?lotions were prepared , resolutions the Noble Viscount justice to Ireland, and the words to which. movement in that Certainly this did not at of getting up a little agitation. his gentleman, who had been at once entirely succeed; but t . had refereed—aliens in blood—were made use . of for . thepuor-t it was stated, he threw another . . . Irish tithes and agitation to a cer tain- dron—the question of butwhieldt did d ha n d used to such missions, wasriotwiituhgoruetdhieisutreLotuorcetb, efocra,uais. sided. He (Lord Lyndhurst) degree followed , laughter)--and If Hear, hear," and' immense his vocation—(" l ceased from he ever had entertained any it would have en r ti ll r . towards the Hon. Member, who was thus labouring in he seoxmpeureibenzerdhiins first bis accuser bi or assailant. not feel n a e n ar y ly en s m a r t y nothing The next was a man of a very different stamp , t s h ty e le gr o e f a lain one, if he weapon of the one, and the coarse, rusty, and He p re retted that could be more strongly contrasted than the well-temper e might so express himself, of his associate.g °was ia.nytforand light lo t P a le u as e:c r e e . ketch which the t hi s person, how h e did not possess the Noble Viscount' s elo q uence and p of description ; but he should never fo r g et the s Noble Visoosnt had on one occasion drawn of to his character tury, the multitude gazing at him, doubt fu as a him benevolent or —as to whether they ought to ,consider he appeared visiting our planet once in thelrevolution of a evil spirit---whether Spirit—whether " A spirit of health or g oblin darnn'd." d almost t o The Noble Viscount, wrapt in such awe, app say— " I'll call thee— eare King—father." This person had ex (Hear, hear; and immense laughtero. d the applause of the Now, most decent kind, that he had gamed in this instance. Now, titude ; but all description must failtributionly na y ho for these feats he received lavish con but, at the same time, he hibited himself in such a variety of p !tures, not always of the would say, ducal wealth—( Hear sant. This person (conti from the hands of the starving pea T has in every shape anic_l d Lo ) nued the Noble and Learne our Lordships' House--an _ti form insulted your Lordships•—d y 1 He has denounced You' had, by the aid of the priests, ,xtracted the miserable pittane Many of your Lordships indivi. ual y.