The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-06 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON. THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1539.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock

METROPOLITAN POLITICAL

SUMMARY.

The Courier of this evening, alluding to the prospects
of Toryism as being revived by the blundering of their
adversaries, says—" The lot of the Tories is, notwith-
standing all these adverse points a singularly lucky one.
Their adversaries, Whig and Radical, are evermore, by
accident or by design, taking some course or making some
slip, that seems peculiarly calculated to render them timely
support, or to revive their drooping hopes of success. The
Ministerial deficiencies which we yesterday recognised
and lamented, seem—for example—especially devised and
created for Tory advantage. Wbo and what, within the
wide range of the British empire, can by possibility be
b ‘nefited by such prejudices and timidities, but Tories and
Toryism Turn from Whigs to Radicals, and what else do
we see ? What meet us there, but proofs the most positive
that there is no good luck stirring ' but what lights' on
Tory shoulders I"

The Globe, recurring to the subject of Lord John Rus.
sell's speech in the Commons on Tuesday night, observes—
" There is no mystification,' and there is no finality'
secret influence. There is the simple fact, that Lord John
Russell, though friendly to progressive improvements, will
not abandon the basis of the first Reform Bill to effect a
second one. There is the other simple fact, that if Lord
John Russell would make this abandonment, the moderate
section of his supporters would, to a man, leave him alone
in his glory. The Ministerial Leader's statement of his
own meaning was a perfectly clear one, and was not, we
believe, so displeasing to that section of independent Mem-
bers whose views may be considered to have been repre-
sented by Mr. Warburton, as the silence after Sir R. Peel's
inj irious commentary."
I'he Standard contains the following absurd paragraph
in a leading article on the subject of the Ministry :—" We
believe that the Parliament will be dissolved before Mid-
summer day, and an attempt made to obtain a Radical
House. Let no man be incredulous because of the extra-
vagant absurdity of the surmised project. The efficient
Prime Ministerat present is the Marchioness of Normanby ;
and with her mans of information, she may be well enough
excused for believing that the people will suppdrt her Go.
vernment; or, if she listens to her husband's representa.
tions, she is still more likely to miscalculate. It is impos-
sible for any one to reflect upon Lord Normanby's acts and
demeanour in Jamaica and in Ireland, and to read his
wretched novels, without coming to the conclusion that
he is, as the Rev. Sydney Smith would say, a 'regular
fool.' "

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. MACAULEY was introduced by the Attorney-
General and the Lord Advocate, and took the oaths
and his seat for Edinburgh.
NOTTINGHAM INCLOSURE BILL.
On the motion of Sir R. FERGUSON, the West
Croft (Nottingham) Inclosure and Canal Bill, and the
Nottingham Common Fields Inclosure Bill were read a
third time and passed.
The Report of the Committee on the Almsworthy
(Somerset) Inclosure Bill was brought up.
HULL DOCKS BILL.
On the Motion of Sir W. JAMES, the Standing
Orders were dispensed with in the case of the Hull
Docks Bill, after a few words from Mr. Hutt and Mr.
Green.

COMMERCIAL RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. PRYME brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Commercial (London and Blackwell)
Railway Bill.
WHITE LEAD COMPANY'S BILL.
On the motion of Sir M. WOOD, the White Lead
Company's Bill was read a third time and passed.
LONDON BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL.
Mr. HERRIES moved the third reading of the
London Bridge Approaches Bill.
Sir R. INGLIS objected to the Bill because its
provisions had no relation to its title. He could not
agree to the destruction of the Church of St. Bartho-
lomew, Exchange. He agreed that the tower should be
pulled down, because it was necessary for making a
proper thoroughfare, but gave a most unwilling assent.
But he could not consent that consecrated ground
should further be unnecessarily trespassed upon for the
purposes of traffic. He admitted that the Bill had the
sanction of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the
Bishop of London ; not however the authority even of
these Right Rev. Prelates would induce him to allow
such desecration of sacred edifices, which had been car-
ried to a great extent within the last half century. He
therefore moved the omission of the words " affecting
the Church in question."_

Mr. HERMES said he was not at all surprised at
the opposition of the Hon. Baronet, because such
opposition was natural enough for those who were
attached to the Established Church, and who had not
carefully investigated the subject as the Committee had
who had sanctioned the Bill. His Hon. Friend bad greatly
overrated the importance of the church in question.
Though technically this was a private Bill, it was in
truth a public one, because the improvements proposed
to be made were all to be effected by a charge upon
the funds of the Corporation of London.
Mr. PATTERSON supported the Bill.
Lord DUNGANNON thought the precedent con-
tained in the present Bill was ars extremely dangerous one::
It was a dangerous power to confide to any party to
authorise them to demolish the whole of the sacred edi-
fice, and he should certainly object to it.
Mr. SHEPHERD contended that the pulling down
of a church for such a purpose and under such circum-
stances would be fatal to the best interests of the
country.

Mr. ESTCOURT thought the propositon a most
'monstrous one. When they had evidence on all hands
that there was a vast deal of church accommodation re-
quired in the metropolis, it was most injurious to pro-
pose such a thing.
Lord EASTNOR opposed the Bill.
Sir R. INGLIS said that as the Bill proposed to
destroy one of the City Churches, he should oppose it,
but would not press the matter to a division.
Lord DUNGANNON thought that this Bill went
to establish a precedent of so serious a nature, that he
should certainly divide the House against it. He moved
that it be read a third time that day six months.
The House then divided, when there appeared :
For the third reading
Against it

Majority in favour of the Bill ... 49
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
Mr. WODEHOUSE moved the third reading of
the Norwich Tonnage Bill.—Agreed to.
• Mr. DARBY presented a petition from Brighton
against the Government plan of national education.
Air. Sergeant JACKSON presented a petition from
a parish in the county of Roscommon against the na-
tional system of education.
DUTIES ON COLONIAL TIMBER.

_. -----
Mr. VILLIERS gave notice that on the 20th inst.
he should call the attention of the House to the duties
levied on colonial timber.

Mr. MACKINNOg gave notice that he should to-
morrow move that the name of Mr. W. Harvey be
added to the Select Committee on the County Courts
Bill.

THE LATE DISTURBANCES.
On the motion of Mr'. ESTCOURT, an address
was agreed upon to her Majesty, for a return of the
correspondence which had taken place between Lord
J. Russell and certain Lords Lieutenant of Counties,
&c., relating to th• late disturbances.
CATHOLIC DISABILITIES.

Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that on Tuesday the
11th, he should move for leave to bring in 'a Bill to
enable Catholics to practise in the Spiritual Courts in
Ireland, and to hold the office of Lord Chancellor in
that country.

Lortl, and from the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Tamworth, if either of them would offer any opposi-
tion to emotion for an address to the Crown, praying that
copies of the correspondence which had passed between
her Majesty and the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Tamworth, and which that Right Hon. Baronet
had read to the House should be laid on the table of
that House.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL should certainly oppose
such a motion.
Mr. W AKLEY would then give notice that he
should shortly bring this matter before the House, and
that he should move that this House do present an
humble address to her Majesty, that she would be gra-
ciously pleased to order that there should be laid before
this House copies of the correspondence which had
passed between her Majesty and the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet the Member for Tamworth, and which her Ma-
jesty had been graciously pleased to permit that Right
lion. Baronet to read to the House on the 14th of May
last. We understood the Hon. Gentlemen afterwards to
state that he intended to bring forward his motion on
the II th of June.

IRISH RAILWAYS.
Mr. BARRON wished to ask when it was the in
.ention of the Government to bring the subject of Irish
Railways again before the House.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not at present fix a
dab, although he had been very anxious to do so.
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS.
Sir R. INGLIS begged to put a question to the
Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department.
A certain address had been presented to the High She-
riff of the County of Mayo, the first name to which was
that of the Lord Lieutenant of the County.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) The next, as reported in the Freeman's
Journal, was " John Archbishop of Tuam." He would
take no notice of the third signature, tnd would give no
opinion upon it ; but he wished to ask whether the
Noble Lord had intended the Attorney-General for
Ireland to take ally proceedings in consequence of
the assumption of that title, in reference to
the clause in the Roman Catholic Act, which prohibited
Roman Catholic Prelates from assuming the titles of
Protestant dignitaries ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL bad not seen the requi-
sition to which the lion. Baronet had alluded ; but in
answer to the question put to him, he would state
that the Government had not given any directions to
the Attorney-General, nor had they communicated
with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on the subject,
and without there was an absolutenecess,ity for so doing
he should not think it necessary to take any steps in re-
ference to it. On an occasion when an application was sent
to him by a person acting on the behalf of Dr.
asking that certain petitions should be laid before his
late Majesty, that individual had taken the title of
Archbishop of Tuam, and he (Lord John Russell) im-
mediately wrote to him, stating that he could not pre-
sent the petition to his Majesty as he had assumed
that title.—( Hear, hear, from the Conservatives.)
Therefore, whenever it came before him officially he
would entirely deny that Dr. M'Hale had any right to
assume that title ; but he could not agree in the pro-
priety or expediency of instituting prosecutions on such
a subject.—(Cheers.)
Mr. O'CONNELL did not know whether the Noble
Lord was aware that there was no such clause as that
stated by the Hon. Baronet. The clause prohibited
others from giving any Roman Catholic that dignity, but
it did not prevent him taking it himself.—(Laughter.)
Lord J. RULSELL replied that, in the case to which
he had alluded, the title was not given by another to Dr.
AP Hale. Whether or not there was that default in the
Act mentioned by the Hon. and Learned Member he
did not know.
Air. O'CONNELL observed that there was no
such Protestant dignitary as the "Archbishop of Tuam"
at the present time There was a Bishop of Tuam,
but no Archbishop.—(lronical cheers from the Con-
servatives.)
Sir R. INGLIS said, in consequence of the state-
ments of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin,
he had obtained a copy of the Catholic Relief Act, and
after perusing it, he was convinced that he (Sir R.
Inglis) was right, and the Hon. and Learned Member
wrong. The Hon. Member then read the section
of the Act, from which it appeared that any Catholic
Clergyman assuming a title that did not belong to him
was liable to b 9 fined to the oxtent of 100/,
Mr. O'CONNELL after reading the Act, felt bound
to admit that he was wrong. Any person in or out
of that House might call another the Archbishop
of any place, but the individual was not at liberty to
assume it himself.

ELECTION PETITIONS TRIAL BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the House going into a
Committee on the Election Petitions Trial Bill being
read,

Sir E. SUGDEN wished to call the attention
of the House to the results that would follow the pas-
sing of this measure. He thought the House should main-
tain its authority with respect to all election petitions.
He was willing to place the Members under such re-
strictions in the exercise of the right which they wished
to retain as must satisfy the country ; they were de-
sirous of giving to the country the right of a fair trial
of election petitions. The question was, how far
the House could furnish such a tribunal from
within itself. The plan of the Right Hon. Baro-
net (Sir R. Peel) was a great improvement in
bia Committee
'ars respect. that be, believe& a: great pert -tif
whit had resulted under the old Act, were the conse-
quence of the excitement which invariably prevailed in
the House on choosing the names and striking them.
He thought the House might place confidence in the
General Committe, but even there there would be two
parties. It was impossible it could be otherwise, and
they might go on very well together in the appointment
of the first six members, but the appointment
of the seventh member would always be a matter
of contention between them, and eventually
it would be a matter of arrangement that the
seventh man should be appointed by one party
one time and by the other the next time. He
thought it was exceedingly dangerous for gentle-
men unlearned in the law to take upon themselves to
decide a point of law, and although he thought the Bill
of Lis Right Honourable Friend a great improvement,
of
A so
s
he was afraid that it would not accomplish all that was
assistancefo one Session to
r would be
ses wantedr
Assessors
oa expectedsn
a body, points
ody:roobfmi iat
w,h.e and
sHiltoehualdid
iinok te
approve,
try the experiment of affording Committees legal as-
sistance under the advice and controul of the House,
and see how the experiment would work for one Ses-
sion ; and although he would not object to having a
case stated and laid before the Judges for their opinion,
yet he knew the opinion of the House was so strong
against submitting questions connected with politcs to
the Judges, that he should be unwilling to recommend
such a measure.
The House then went into a Committee on the Bill.
On clause 22 being put, which was for the appoint-
ment of a general Committee of Selection,
Lord MAHON said he could not see how the se-
lection would be made for the purpose of trying Irish
Controverted Elections. Three might be appointed on
one side, and three on the other, but who was to ap-
point the seventh.

(LIFT SITTING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.

A message from the House of Commons brought
up several Bills.
Mr. CAMPBELL, from the East India House, at-

tended,SHlßE presented peti-
tions from several Presbyterian congregations in Ireland,
and presentedefnpoaplevrsN.
The Marquis
eansmigbtb
soldiers.
be adoptcier
.adopted for the proper, re-
ipigraieyeineg thatservi means
of Presbyterian
Lord CA WDOR presented petitions from a place in
Sutherland, in favour of Church Extension in Scotland.
Lord Cawdor, Lord Stradbroke, Lord Colville, Lord
Radnor, Lord Barham, and several other Noble Lords
presented petitions from a great number of places in
England, Wales, and Scotland, praying for the adoption
of a uniform rate of Penny Postage.
MALTA.

The Marquis of NORMA NBY said, that seeing the
Noble Earl opposite who had given notice of a motion for
to-night he would take the opportunity of stating that he
had not the slightest objection to the production of the
hoped
nEda Earl would
consequencee t object
o to,
tihhdacennuo°nnt
papers, but that a dispatch had been just received to
which sufficient attention had not yet been paid to en-
able him to say whether it could be laid before the
House or not. Moreover he wished to add other papers
which
to those which were intended to be moved fodre,dwhhiiemh hine
l would not
were communications which had passed between himself,
In conic-
agcvso:nceive
soatiido nt
that
tl
he
another odt
istom produce additional papers
Sir
NoblerdhLat
poh
sred Commissioners.twhheo
Nobleh
ad
prEeacre
laql
hiusseenpecreeeese ofon
of the
h
of any consequence. He had night.
objectt lithat
The
t the
Earl
a ri. postponing
efpropositionßlPON
formed a ground of necessity for his putting off his
motion for a third time, because he really did not think
those papers were
re-
ceived, last night, a communication from the late Noble
Secretary (Lord Glenelg) saying he was labouring under
severe indisposition, and that he should not be able to
attend to-day ; but adding that he did not wish the mo-
tion to be postponed on account of his absence. But
as his (Earl Ripen s) observations would certainly apply
to some parts of that Noble Lord's conduct, and also to
some portion of the conduct of the Commissioners, which
that Noble Lord could only be expected to be com-
petent to reply to ; he did not feel that he
could proceed with his motion to-night, mithout
subjecting himself to some suspicion of unfairness.
It was, however, extremely inconvenient and extremely
disagreeable to him to have thus to put the motion off
from time to time, because it was a matter not only
affecting the public but affecting individuals, and if he
put it off now, as he felt he must do, he ventured to
say the odds were, that he should never be able to bring
it on at all.

The Marquis of NORMANBY said, that he was
perfectly ready as far as he was concerned ; his only de-
sire was, that the House should be in possession
of fuller information than it could be consi-
dered to be at present, but if the Noble Earl chose
to proceed now, he (the Noble Marquis) should be
quite ready to give all the information in his power.
The Earl of RIPON could not think of proceeding
under such disadvantages.
Lord PORTMAN said the Attorney-General of
Malta considered himself somewhat aggrieved, and was
inxions the matter should be investigated as soon as
possible.
The Marquis of NORM ANBY said they ought not
to allude to the merits of the case, unless they were
prepared to go into the whole of it. He did not think
there was any intention to cast any imputation on that
individual.
The Earl of RIPON said he should certainly take
the earliest opportunity of bringing the question for-
ward.

The Marquis of NORMANBY then moved for
copies of the correspondence that had taken place be-
tween himself and Sir John Stoddart on the subject of
the Malta Ordinances.
The Bishop of CHESTER presented a petition
signed by 24 Clergymen, and a number of the residents
of Liverpool, praying that the Post-office might be closed,
and the mails prohibited from running on Sundays.
The Bishop of LONDON presented two petitions
to the same effect ; also a petition from Belfast against
idolatrous worship in India.
The Bishop of BANGOR presented a petiton from
Bangor against the mails running on Sundays.
The Earl of STANHOPE presented two petitions
in favour of a uniform rate of Penny Postage.