The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-05 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 5, 1830.

cussion, and he would, therefore, abstain from any further
remarks respecting it.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave the Noble Duke
every credit for his sincerity in the belief that retrench-
ment had been carried as far as it could consistent with
the interests of the country. Their Lordships were, how-
ever, aware that in a former Session of Parliament, when
some retrenchment was made, it was then said that no
further reductions could be carried into effect; but it was
found that, by the application of Parliamentary investi-
gation to the subject, reductions were still possible—
and, indeed, retrenchments were made. The Noble Mar-
quis disdained any wish to throw out imputations against
the sincerity of the belief of the Noble Duke, or of the
Members of the Administration, that no further reduction
could he effected, but he (the Marquis of Lansdowne)
could not assume, because a considerable reduction had
been made, or was intended, therefore no further retrench-
ment could be carried into effect. He, indeed, hoped,
and should do so to the last day of the Session, that a
further reduction in the expenditure of the country would
be accomplished. The Noble Duke had adverted more
particularly to the Colonial expenditure, assuming the
impossibility of carrying on a further reduction in that
department. There were, however, two views to be
taken on that subject. The one was that which the
Noble Duke had taken, by stating the minimum of ex-
penses of civil and military establishments by which the
Colonies could be maintained by the mother country ; the
other view was that to which the Noble Duke had not ad-
verted—by introducing a good system of policy and go-
vernment, so as to enable the Colony to assist the mother
country. This was the most important view of the two.
The petition was then read, and laid on the table.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
the farmers and tradesmen of Louth, in Lincolnshire, and
vicinity, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying
an inquiry into the subject. "As I have, my Lords, given
notice of a motion for a Select Committee to inquire into
the internal state of the country, so far as the working
classes are concerned, I will not trouble your Lordships
at present with arty further remark than this, that I have
heard with considerable p'easure the speeches of my Noble
Friends, and I hope, from what they have stated, to be
supported by them on Thursday next"—(Hear.)

would make it imperative to accept of it. The third peti-
tion was signed by 10,000 out of the 19,000 inhabitants,
and they complained that the Rector was a tithe farmer
and grazier, who resided 50 miles from the parish, that
some years back when distress generally prevailed through
the parish, and when subscriptions were entered into for
the relief of the distressed, the Rector contributed nothing
to their relief; that he took tithe upon hay and wool, a
practice not before known in the parish.---Ordered to be
printed.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that on Tuesday, the
4th of May, he would move fcr leave to bring in a Bill
for placing the charitable bequests of Roman Catholics on
the same footing as those of Protestant Dissenters; and
also a Bill to render legal, in certain cases, the marriages
of Protestants and Roman Catholics in England, and to do
away with certain penalties attaching in Ireland to Roman
Catholic Clergymen for celebrating the ceremony of mar-
, riage between Protestants and Catholics.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that on the 6th of May
he would bring forward a motion for the effectual and ra-
dical reform of the system of representation in that House.
Mr. A. CAMPBELL presented two petitions from
Glasgow, against the renewal of the East India Company's
Charter.—Ordered to be printed.
On the motion of Mr. PROTHEROE, various Returns
were ordered, connected with the preparation and the
printing of the Public Records, and showing the manner
in which the sums voted for that purpose in 1829 had been
employed.
Mr. SPRING RICE had a petition to present of a very
peculiar character from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of
the town of Gal Way. This was the only place since the
passing of the great measure of last Session, in which such
disabilities still existed, by reason of difference of religion.
In the reign of George the First an Act of Parliament bad
passed, giving to all Protestant merchants who should re-
side in Galway for the space of seven years, the right of
claiming the freedom of the town. Protestants, and Pro-
testants only, had the right of sending Representatives to
Parliament. As the Relief Bill of last Session did not do
away with this particular Act, the Roman Catholic mer-
chants and traders of Galway were excluded from the
right enjoyed by their Protestant townsmen. He trusted
the town of Galway could not remain the only exception to
the wise and salutary measure of last Session. If the pe-
tition were received. by the House, he would, on Wednes-
day next, move for leave to bring in a Bill founded upon
it, and which would have the effect of placing the Pro-
testants and Catholics of Galway, on the same footing.
Mr. PROTHEROE supported the petition.
Mr. PEEL said that, in his apprehension of the mea-
sure of last Session, the intention of it was that Roman
Catholics should not remain under any disabilities, either
as to eligibility to civil offices, or as to municipal privileges,
from which Protestants were exempt, he was prepared to
maintain that principle either in Galway or any where
else. He should, however, in this particular case, re-
serve for the present his opinion as to the way in which it
might be most convenient and desirable to carry the prin-
ciple into effect.

Mr. PROTHEROE expressed his satisfaction at what
had fallen from the Right lion. Gent.

Lord F. L. GOWER said as the Bill proposed to be
brought in was a public, and not,a private one, he should
follow the example of his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Peel),
and reserve his opinion until the Bill was brought in.
Mr: PEEL, in answer to an observation from Mr. H.

Inglis, said the Hen. Member had misunderstood him.

lie (Mr. Peel) apprehended that Protestants, after residing
seven years in Galway, had a right to insist upon the free-
dom of the town, as the,law now stood. Protestants thvre-

fore; and Catholics in. this particular instance, might be
put upon the same footing, either by depriving Protestants
of the right, or by extending it to Roman Catholics. The
object of the measure of last Session was that all muni-
cipal situations, and civil offices, with the exceptions men-
tioned, should be open alike to Catholics and Protestants
Mr. WYNN would object to any mode of equalization
which would have the effect of taking from the Protestants
of Galway the rights npw enjoyed by.them. '
Mr. PEEL meant to give no opinion either way. He
spoke only of the general principle, and .reserved to him-
self the. freedom of applying it in this case in the way that
might be judged most. advisable..
Mr. O'CONNELL said .the Bill of last Session effected
an equality in all COrporations except • Galway. 'He wee
certain .that the Roman-Catholics of that' town w ould
prefer having their petition rejected to a measure that would
have the effect of taking away any right from Protestants.
Mr. S. RICE said his Bill would not interfere with any
corporate regulation or any by-law of the Corporation.
Mr. DALY said such a measure as that now proposed
would have the effect of abrogating entirely the rights of
the Corporation.
Sir C. WETHERELL said that at present he could
not give an opinion one way or the other. When the Bill
was brought in, there were some considerations to which
he should draw the attention of the house.

Mr.. NORTH said the object of the law which gave
this right originally to the Protestants of Galway, was to
induce. Protestants front other parts of Ireland to come
and reside in the town, the population of Galway having
been then in a great measure Catholic. The policy, how-
ever, was now, happily, altered.. The best way of pro-
ceeding, in his opinion, would be, to repeal the original
Statute which created the disqualification.
Mr. LAMBERT supported the petition.
Mr. DALY said there were many resident voters.
Mr. O'HARA said the time was come when distinc-

ions should no longer exist between Protestahts and Catho-

lies. .On 'the 'unanimity of all classes depended the
prosperity of Ireland, and he would support any measure
that tended to promotelt.—(Hear, hear.)
•
The petition was ordered to be ',tinted. ..
DUTY ON BOOKS AND PRINTS.

Mr. BERNAL asked the Chancello'r of the Eichequer
what had been the result of his enquiries into the mode
in which the duty on books and prints was collected in
this country. •

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER answered
that for some time past considerabl.'! difference 'of opinion
had prevailed as to the mode in Which the duty no books
with prints in them and books of prints stuck together
should be charged aid collected. The Commissioners of
Customs • had, however, recently agreed upon a fiesh or-
der, stating the opinion of the Board, that Where prints
•and maps served merely to illustrate a work, they wereto
be deemed part of the book and charged with duty ac-
cordingly ; but where prints and maps were without let-
ter-press, or where the letter-press was only descriptive or
explanatory of the prints or maps, then they were to be
charged With duty as prints and not as• books.
Mr. BERNAL said it was fit that the regulation re-
ferred to by the Right Hon. Gentleman should be sent to
the coast for the guidance of the inferior Custom-house of-
ficer% in future.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
that the officers might have deviattl from the strict line of
their duty, and expressed his readiness to attend to any
facts the lion. Member was in a condition to communicate.

COURTS OF COMMON LAW.
Mr. PEEL moved that an humble Address be pre-
sented to the Crown, for a Copy of the Second Report of
the Commissioners of Enquiry into the Proceedings of the
Superior Courts of Common Law.—Ordercd.
Mr. BROUGHAM Wished to take this opportunity of
stating why he intended to postpone his motion connected
with the object of inquiry of the Commissioners. It had
stood fir yesterday, and he owed an apology to the House
for not then attending to. defer it,'although it was generally
known that he did not mein to bring it on. The post-
ponement of the Report now moved fur was in fact the
cause of the postponementof his Motion ; for until the re-
commendation of the Commissioners was known, the dis-
cnssion would be premature, although he had reason to
believe that they only touched slightly upon the subject he
intended to treat. He should therefore renew his dropt
notice for the 29th of April, being the earliest day after
Easter when he should be able to bring forward the sub-
ject. Ile should have attended yesterday; but after the
lengthened discussion of the night preceding, he really did
not give Ilun. Members credit fur activity enough to Make
a House.

COLONIAL -JUDICATURES.
Mr..BROUGHAM, on presenting a petition from a
town in Yorkshire, against Slavery in the West Indies,
asked the Right Hon. Secretary for the Colonies what
were the intentions of Government topecting the proposed
Bill for introducing Reforms into Colonial Judicatures ?
He had.
w understood that the difficulties that presented them-
selves were great; but he wished to know if they were in-
surmountable, or whether they were such as to render ne-
cessary a poitponemint of the attempt until another session.

PRICE 7D.

At all events, he hoped that something might this year be
done, in order to establish the admissibility of the evidence
of all classes.

Sir GEORGE MURRAY replied, that the principal
difficulty arose out of the increased expence which won'd
be occasioned by the proposed reforms, and of that expence
he had not yet been able to procure an estimate. As far
as that difficulty could be overcome, he should be happy
to use his best endeavours to introduce measures for a par-
tial, if not for a general Reform.