The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-29 00:00:00

on the Ministerial benches.) It might be a matter of mirth
with the Noble Lords opposite, but to him, and those who, like
him, resided in Ireland, it was matter of serious reflection.
It might be a very good joke to the Noble Lords opposite, but
he would repeat, that on the recommendation of this gaoler,
while in a state of transition from sanity to insanity, nineteen
persons were set at liberty, and those very persons were imme-
diately afterwards imprisoned for new offences.—( Hear, hear.)
This was the state of Ireland under his Majesty's present Go-
vernment. The abuses of the Reform Bill in Ireland had
made it almost impossible for Protestants who had honest opi-
nions to venture to express them. If any man ventured to
give an honest opinion, he was denounced as a Tory ; and if
he were willing to surrender the representation of the country
and its institutions they were called Liberals.—(A laugh.)
The Earl of FING ALL said, when the protest was first
spoken of he was applied to as a Peer and a landed proprietor
in Ireland to sign it. He replied to the
_Noble Friend who
made the application, that he would not sign the protest, that
as his religious opinions were a matter of notoriety it would ap-
pear rather extraordinary if he signed the protest. The an-
swer was, that there was nothing exclusive in the protest ; and
upon this statement he signed it. The protest stated that
those who signed it considered that the country was in a state
of tranquillity, and he for one felt bound to sanction that opi-
nion. Those Noble Lords who were not connected with Ire-
land must consider it very strange to hear statements so totally
contradictory with respect to the state of that country. In his
heart he believed that there was at that moment in Ireland a
comparative degree of tranquillity. When he used the word
" comparative" he meant to imply the absence of dangerous
crimes arising out of combination and attended with violence.
He regretted that the state of Ireland was not still more
tranquil. He had never lent himself, nor had he ever
endeavoured in any manner to kindle the flame of agitation in
Ireland.—( Loud cheers.) There were two accusations brought
against his Majesty's Government. 'The first was the exer-
cise of their patronage in an improper manner ; and the next
chiefly related to the conduct of the Lord-Lieutenant. As
far as related to the abuses of patronage, he did not sae that any
fair objection could be made. Several papers had been read
to show that the present Administration had disposed of its
patronage more in favour of Roman Catholics than of Pro-
testants. He had endeavoured to ascertain what places the
present Administration of the Earl of Mulgrave had disposed
of, and he found that out of three Judges two were Protest-
ants, and one, the Master of the Rolls, was a Catholic. Of
the seven Assistant-barristers appointed, four were Protest-
ants, and three Catholics. Of other law-officers, there were
six; four of whom were Protestants, and two Catholics. Of
the stipendiary magistrates—which was the largest branch of
patronage—there were twenty-five appointed ; and of these
thirteen were Protestants, and twelve Catholics. Of the
Commissioners of the Dublin police there were two ap-
pointed—a Protestant aid a Catholic. 'Of Inspectors of
Police there were four; three Protestants, and one Ca-
tholic. This made a total of forty-seven officers connected
with the administration of police who were appointed
by the' present Administration ; and of these twenty-seven
were Protestants, and twenty Catholics.—( Hear, hear.) The
Noble Earl (Earl Roden) stated a gentleman of the name
of Smith had been recently appointed a stipendiary Magis-
trate. He knew Mr. Smith, and knew him to have acted
as a Magistrate many years. That Mr. Smith was a member
of the National Association he had no doubt, but he saw no
reason why this should be made a ground of complaint
against his appointment. With respect to the complaint
about the remission of sentences by the Lord-Lieutenant, he
begged to say, that when the Lord-Lieutenant was in the
county of Meath he (the Earl of Fingal') attended upon him.
It was certainly true that the Lord-Lieutenant did not call
upon any country gentleman in the county, but he was bound
also to say that there were not a great many of those gen-
tlemen that had waited on his Excellency. The Lord-Lieu-
tenant was attended by all the officers connected with the
gaol, and by the Magistrates of the towns ; he remained in
the gaol two hours, and he (the Earl of Fingal') could safely
say that the Lord-Lieutenant took great pains to investigate
all the cases.
The Earl of COURT° WN made a few observations
which were wholly inaudible in the gallery.
Lord CL ONC UR RY begged to observe that with respect
to the persons who had been liberated, there was not, he be-
lieved, one who had been guilty of felony. The great ma-
jority of those liberated consisted of persons who were con-
fined under what was called the green-wax process, namely,
poor persons who had become bail, and were unable to pay
the penalty. During the whole period of the present admi-
nistration being in office, they had not liberated more than one
third of those for whom application was made without full in-
vestigation. Ile had himself once made application for the
discharge of a prisoner, but he was refused, as the charge
against the prisoner was one of combination, and those were
offences which the Lord Lieutenant had resolved not to par-
don. As to the appointment of sheriffs, there were only
7 out of the 32 whose names were not in the returns of the
judges, and these were accounted for. The Roman Catholics
had now for 7 years past been eligible to this office, and yet,
out of the 436 appointed, only 43 were Roman Catholics.
If the proportion of the population were taken, it would be
a sufficient excuse to the Government if they had thought
proper to make the difference the other way. There was
hardly any thing So constantly harassing to the feelings of the
Roman Catholics, and so offensive to them, as the exclusion
from corporate offices. The corporations of the towns in Ire-
land were in the hands of some great men in the neighbour-
hood, who became the patrons, and who filled all the offices
with connections of their own family. These officers made
away with the property of the Corporations to the patrons,
and thus the Corporations were left without funds. To re-
claim this property was more the object of the Protestants
than the Catholic., gimaidamletion„Arhilit
theji2p.ulatioAi 2f,„.tullirc'o`cm the Marquis of DOWNS HIRE, in
reply, the petition was laid on the table.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (ENGLAND) ACT
AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Com-
mittee on this Bill was deferred till the Bth of May.
The other. Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their Lordships at a quarter to twelve o'clock adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 29.
The SPEAKER took the Chair At Four o'Clock.

Mr. Haines appeared at .the bar and presented papers
from the Court of Chancery.
The Manchester and Oldham Roads' Bill was read a
third time and passed.
LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY.
Mr. P. STEWART said he had been requested by
several Gentlemen belonging to the Brighton Committee to
state the dilemma in which they found themselves.
He was reluctant to appear there for that purpose, having
no interest either local or personal in the Sussex list; but
he believed it was for that very reason he had been selected
to make this statement to the House. The Brighton
Committee had sat six weeks hearing evidence on the
four Bills before it.—(Hear, hear.) On the 22d of April
the Committee adjourned till the 25th, having refused to
hear Counsel with regard to the summing up on the merits
of the respective Bills. On the 26th Counsel were or-
dered to appear before the Committee, to argue the
case of the land-holders. On the 25th, it having
previously been understood that the only labours of the
Committee on that day would be to make their selection
from among the Bills, a division was come to in the Com-
mittee, when 17 voted for Stephenson's line, but the con-
joined forces of Sir John Rennie and the South Eastern
Line amounted to 26. It was then proposed that the
Committee should proceed to determine upon Rennie's line ;
but an Hon. Friend of his, with more zeal than judgment,
proposed an adjournment, stating that, as the Committee
had rejected Stephenson's line, there were only two lines
before the Committee, and the Committee was adjourned
till Friday. If the votes had been taken simultaneously
the decision would have been in favourof Stephenson's line.
Having stated this case to the House, and knowing how
the House was influenced by the proceedings of its Com-
mittees, he thought it was their duty to make some
regulations retrospective on the Brighton Committee, and
prospective on any Committee who might be called upon to
sit hereafter. He would conclude by moving that it be an
instruction to the Committee on the Brighton Railway line,
notwithstanding the vote come to on Tuesday last on
Stephenson's line, to proceed to ascertain the opinions of
the Committee on all the lines submitted to them simulta-
neously.
Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY could assure the Hon.
Member that he had committed two singular mistakes.
The Committee did not refuse to hear Counsel, but the
Counsel had refused to address them. He denied that there
was any combination of the other three lines against Stephen-
son's line. There were two eastern and two western lines,
and the question was, after the rejection of Stephenson's line,
whether the public ' interests would have been best pro-
moted by the adoption of an eastern or a western line ?
(Hear, hear.) There never had been a Committee of
that House, in his opinion, more fairly conducted, nor one
in which there was less necessity for the interference
of that House. So far as he (Sir Samuel Walley)
was concerned, his only anxiety was, that the public should,
after the expenditure of at least half a million of money,
have some line between London and Brighton.
Mr.-WYNN said the Committee had power to take a
vote upon each line separately, and then determine which
line had the greatest number of votes.
After a few words from Mr. C. BARCLAY,
Mr. CURTEIS thought this was a most impudent (he
spoke of the intentions of the promoters of the Bill) at-
tempt to force the Committee to come to a particular vote.
He would vote against the proposition, as being very ill timed.
Captain PEC HELL saw no ground for the motion, and
hoped the Hon. Member would withdraw the proposal.
Sir C. BURRELL thought the proceedings of the Com-
mittee were very much to be deprecated, and that the effect
of the decision would be merely to place Stephenson's Line
on the shelf for a short time.
Mr. P. THOMPSON thought the question was
improperly brought before the House. He hoped the
House would not decide the question upon any particular
objection, for the decision of the House would regulate the
proceedings in Committee in future. But the proposition of
his Hon. Friend would give an undue power to the minority
in a Committee. To that he strongly objected. The Com-
mittee were bound to give their specific objections to any
measure which they objected to. If the case adverted to
by his Honourable Friend should occur, it would