The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-26 00:00:00

were searched, there never yet was a body of public
nen engaged in the furtherance of a great cause
amongst whom such er.tire harmony, both of purpose
opinion, existed. For Lord Lyndhurst's clear
and convincing reasons in support of the line which
:ee'adopted, we refer to his Lordship's brief address,
\ellen-in, however, he took care to promise, not only
that he would never pass this Bill, but that he would
nevertheless do his utmost to introduce such amend-
ments into it as ought to meet the support-of all friends
to good government in Ireland. The Bill is to he com-
:flitted to-morrow week.—Tintes.
Thr-, second reading of the Irish Municipal Reform
Bill was, last night, on the motion of Lord Melbourne,
agreed to in the Lords without a division, no greater
show of opposition being manifested than a determina-
tion expressed by the Duke of Wellington and Lord
Lyndhurst never to consent to the passing of the Bill
in its present form. The Noble Duke expressed his
astonishment that, after the manner their Lordships
had dealt with a similar Bill last Session, Ministers
should think of offering the present Bill—in some 'in-
stances worse than the preceding--to their Lordship'
consideration. If the Noble Duke really entertained the
belief that their Lordships' insulting end outrageous
manner of treating the Bill of last year would conduce
to a compromise of the claims of Ireland, he has
strangely deceived himself, and proved unaccountably
regardless of his previous experience ; for, as his
Grace was most appositely reminded by Lord Melbourne,
the Bill for Catholic Emancipation was more fre-
quently rejected, and more strongly denounced than
the present Bill, not only by that House, but even by
his Grace himself ; and yet the Noble Duke afterwards
esteemed himself fortunate in becoming the instrument
of its accomplishment. His Grace also declared that
he would not abolish a system of exclusion in favour of
one party for the purpose of establishing a system of
exclusion in favour of another ; but as this remark
does not apply to the present Bill, which recognises
no sectarian distinctions, it would be almost needless
to reply to it, did not the Tories inveterately persist in
►misrepresenting the Bill as designed for the destruction
of Protestantism. The whole weight of this objection
rests on the fact of the great majority of the Irish people
being Catholics ; wherefore, it is argued, that to admit
them indiscriminately to municipal privileges, would
give that religion an ascendancy. But this ascen-
dancy is not the ascendancy of Catholicism, but the
ascendancy -of the majority—an ascendancy which
must ever prevail in countries possessing free institu-
tions. This ascendancy is not a religious ascendancy,
nor has it anythi►►g to do with religious purposes ; it is
purely the ascendancy of the people as opposed to party
—anti this is the real ground of the hostility of the
Lords. This observation of his Grace was as infeli•
citous as the preceding, tor to what purpose did he
carry the E►ancipation Act if Ireland is now to be
excluded from the enjoyment of municipal institutions,
merely because the great bulk of her population is Ca-
tholic ? It it not a manifest cheat to profess hostility
to systems of exclusions, to pretend a friendship for
general religious emancipation, and at the same time
legislate against a particular creed, because it pos-
sesses a majority of followers? Ireland, we presume,
would be considered entitled to municipal government
were the Catholic population a minority ; but as
they are a majority, she is to be excluded from the
rights possessed by England and Scotland. What,
then, becomes of the principles of emancipation,
which, to have recognised in an Act of Parliament,
was an achievement that will enhance the Gallant
Duke's fame more than any or all his victories. But
we are inadvertently discussing a question on which ar-
gument is completely exhausted ; even the new point
of opposition—" the indifference of the public"—put
forward by the Standard last night, with such a ludi
crous air of superior astuteness, is undeserving a reply.
It would be premature here to speculate on ti►e change
which the Peers will effect on the Bill in Committee ;
but we have little hope of its beipg passed without such
alterations as will render it utterly unworthy of being,
accepted by the House of Commons, and still more in-
sufficient to appease the just claims of the Irish people.
We must wait till we hear what are the
" material alterations" threatened by Lord Lynd-
hurst, before we proceed with the further consider-
ation of the subject. It may not, however, be amiss
to remind the Lords, that alterations emanating
from a man formally denounced by the Irish people as
an enemy to the peace of the country and the stability
of the Throne, are not introduCed under auspices ad-
vantageous to their temperate discussion. In the ad-
mirable speech which prefaced the motion, Lord
Melbourne forcibly and felicitously contrasted the
present state of the English Corporations with the
results which the Tories had prophesied as certain to
follow the English Municipal Reform Act. Every
concession, however, to the claims of justice and the
people has been preceded by similar appalling vaticina-
tions ; but whether the fears of the faction be feigned
or real, theme is now no alternative ; and if there were
there would be no safety but in progressing with that
mighty movement to which an appreciation of their
just rights, consequent upon the advanced state of
popular intelligence, natUrally and necessarily impels
the people.—Morning Advertiser.
In the House of Commons last night an extraordi-
nary scene took place on the ballot for the Carlow elec-
tion petition, before the opening of the reporters' gal-
lery. We have done our -best to obtain an accurate
account of it, and we believe our statement will be found
substantially correct. That those of our readers who
are not Members of the House of Commons may un-
derstand as they read we must begin by briefly de-
scribing the course ordinarily pursued by the House in
choosing Members to sit on an election Committee.
At four o'clock the Speaker counts the Members
present. If enough are in attendance to form the
ballot he directs the parties and agents in the case
to be called in. The names of the Members of the
House, written on folded pieces 'of paper and en-
closed promiscuously in glass vases, are then handed
to the Speaker by the chief clerk. The Speaker pro-
nounces each name successively, the Member, if pre-
sent, answering in his place. When thirty-three
have answered the list is. delivered to the parties,
who proceed, as it is termed, to strike the Committee.
The parties claiming and defending the seat strike off
one name from the list alternately, until the number is
reduced to eleven. The eleven constitute the Coln..
Illittee to whom ethe petition is referred. It is hoped
that in this manner, each party having on equal terms
exercised the right of excluding such Members as
may be, from personal or political considerations, pre-
eminently objectionable, a reasonably fair tribunal may
ultimately be constituted. And now let us proceed
to last night's manoeuvres. It will be remembered that
Mr. \rigors, the sitting Member for Carlow, some time
ago declined to defend his seat against the petition
which attacked it. Certain electors of the county of
Carlow petitioned to be heard i►► defence of the return
in place of Mr. Vigors. The parties, therefore, be-
fore the House of Commons last night were, on the
one hand, the petitioners who complained of the return,
and, on the other hand, certain electors, who defended
the return ; and in the ordinary course of proceeding
each of these parties would have struck off eleven
from a list of thirty-three, and would have submitted
the merits of their case to the remaining eleven. But
this, which would have been equal justice, would not
satisfy the friends of Mr. Vigors. The petition which
had been presented against the return of Mr. Vigors
imputed several illegal acts to the .High Sheriff, the
returning officer. It complained that he had ap-
pointed a notorious partisan as assessor, that he re-
tained votes improperly on the poll, and that be had
excluded votes improperly from the poll. Those of
our readers who are at all conversant with the com-
mon frame of election petitions know well that such
allegations are to be found in far time larger half of
those on which the House of Commons has to de-
cide. In this case, however, it was thought proper
to put forward a new and unprecedented claim.
Mr. Maule .was instructed to appear on behalf of the
High Sheriff, and to claim for him the rigi►t of the
striking the Committee conjointly with the parties
contesting the seat. Mr. Maule cited the Act of
Parliament, the 9th Geo. IV., which regulates the
procedure of the House in these cases. It appeared
from that Act that in case the sheriff shall appear,
and in case there shall be more than one petitoin from
distinct parties,. and complaining on di rent grounds,
then, and in that case the House has the power, ?_/'
it
shall think ft, to give the Returning Officer the privi-