The Sun.
London, England, 1831-09-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

POUSE OF LORDS, SEPTEMBER 16.
I. Five 'o'clock the LORD Cita NCELLOR was engaged
1a bearing Scotch appeals. At that hour his Lordship
i°lc his seat oa the Woolsack, and proceeded with the
public business.
Lord TENTERDEN moved the second reading of the
Limitation of Prescription Bill.
The Bishop of BRISTOL complained of a clause which
4.,e thought would affect the rights and privileges of
the Church. From the known consistency of the Noble
and Learned Lord, and his known attachment to the
Cihal-Ch, he (the Bishop of Bristol) felt assured
that circumstance needed only to be presented to the
mind of the Noble and Learned Lord to insure its due con-
sideration.
L°rd TENTERDEN—That was a point which might
discussed in the Committee. As for himself, he had
"° inclination to do any thing inacceptable to the Church,
"coot under a sense of public duty.
- The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
to be
on Thursday.
fo Lard MELBOURNE rose in order to introduce a Bill
r allowing the use of spring-guns and man-traps in
certaintio Places, and for the protection of certain descrip-
th" °I property. He (the Noble Lord) was one of
ese who cordially joined in the repeal of the former Bill
znr thise. purpose. He considered it a wise and salutary
and in at present repealing part of it he felt
vCelf. obliged to give an explanation of the reasons
s. 'ell had induced him to introduce the present measure.
that Bill was repealed, a crime, he might almost
Y a new crime, had appeared in this country ;-
4, crime for which there could be no shadow of excuse,
trii.4,,which could only be committed by those whose
4n" were actuated by the most diabolical motives—
ZMeant the horrid crime ofsetting fire to the
rical'ural produce. It was s a crime which could
P'''Petrated with the fairest prospects of privacy and
Ctirinealinent, without the privity or knowledge of any one
it t the, incendiary himself. Fur these reasons lie had felt
necessary to introduce the present measure, as affording
te'cme security to that description of property. The pre-
klat Act, it was proposed, should confer power to
of "e
"eence Use of these instruments under the sanction
tWo Magistrates, who would, when required, grant a
50 under certain regulations. He proposed that the fat Rill Rill should be in force for one year until the expiration
tii2lne Session of Parliament thereafter.—The Bill was
'n read a first time, and ordered to be read a second
time on Mond
he y.
• rl ofa ROSsLYN moved the second reading of
to be Genvral Turnpike Act for Scotland, which was ordered
be referred to a Select Committee up stairs.
The LORD CriaNclu.ort then resumed the hearing of

II

-210 USE OF COMMONS, SEPTEMBER 16.
4t
a Quarter to Four o'clock the SPEAKER took his seat.
THE POLES.
RC4)lunei EVANS presented a petition from the National
eform'Association, held at the Crown Tavern, Museum •
street B
:•,1 loomsbury, praying the House to tike into eon-
,e(ation the present state of the unfortunate Poles, with
tr"'" of addressing his Majesty, praying that his Ma-
v would be pleased to recognise their cause.—Laid on
e table, and ordered to be printed.
CASE OF MR. AND AIRS. DEACLE.
tr,,,,,"""1"el EVANS next presented a petition from the
r °f Cianbrook, in Kent, praying the House to inves-
late the case . and Mrs. Deacle, with a view of
4/',4,?ding them reliefs The petition was signed by 150
thA`tiln", and he (Colonel Evans) was desired to refer to
th,",i""n• Member for Kent (Mr. Hodges) to vouch for
Vrr respectability. When he presented the petition of
Deacle, it was charged to him by a powerful
I,,nation that he had it in his pocket three or four weeks
fore he presented it, which was not the fact, for he only
fojl°
it on the Thursday, and he presented it on the
V/44
Wit'g Monday. He stated on a former night that there
thit a very strong feeling throughout the country upon
l'uhiert, and that his Maj sty's Government ought to
It,
();it 'orne measure respecting it ; he now repeed what
'55 said, but lie was unwilling to force anaty isolated
fs,„') the present Government, who were bent upon Re-
and who had, by their conduct, established them-
'n the esteem of the whole country.
WILKS concurred in the statement expressive of
p:tfit'Y general feeling upon this subject. He, too, had a
their sent to him, in which the petitioners expressed 141,.; abhorrence of the treatment received by Air. and
karfPeacle, and especially at the want of gallantry
Ai'ne cuelty practised towards the unhapp la.
lest I).r W. HARVEY said it was obviousy thatdy at pre-
kay
tin.r'thing could he done in this case by the House, and
Iscuasion upon it was premature. It was said
1e4.4 former occasion that the defendants intended
thelaw for a new trial as soon as the forms of
oP{rwould permit, and therefore until they had that
11,k rtunity, which would be during the first four days of
f°llt dtelait it was premature to &worts it. Should those
last tees
of next term pass without the defendants taking
td4 to challenge the verdict, then he hoped the Gal-
,ll4t,:genlber would bring the subject again before the
tlsahe• At the same time he must say that Mr. Deacle
kad,:'en greatly prejudiced by statements which hail been
thin; in the House by individuals who did not perhaps
tt,t: at the time that they were all powerful there, and
Mil's parties were without the means of replying.
hODGES spoke to the respectability of the peti-
t AI
"ins r;
'RINGLE spoke very inaudibly ; we understood
test4.`n deprecate the feeling which had been excited by
ad Alenibers of the House upon this case, and which
Slit
1"° carried through the country by the instrumen.
J the
Press.
,
441 t 4
' "'CONNELL said the case of these individuals
tout:ertainly excited a considerable interest throughout the
tittattiY* He regretted that the present discussion was pre-
as the case was to come again before a court of
placehot he observed that two petitions, one from a
~ttrin, in Kent, and the other from the town of 'Wolver-
,istr,Tr'r had been forwarded to him to present, praying
t
Ito le rase of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle might be. ti.ken
4iroaideration.
IvI!'istde•PERGIISSON thought the feeling that hail been
tat ~Was highly creditable to the country, for certaiely
Strresent appeared that Mr. and Mrs Deacle had been
`tttrtijustly treated. He was of opinion that it would be
off Wait the result of the proceedings in a court
dt~4i- b t 5
efore any further steps were taken in the House.
• PALMER sail the House should recollect the
Ytte le3 with which the Magistrates of Hampshire
Ivs4ltia4trounded, amidst riots and burnings, and then he
tad ask' was it possible that they could act as calmly
at i •sParish,nately as they were sitting in the House
11
gss their own drawing-rooms. There were no less
4llyi 'even large mobs, and Hampshire mobs too,
"inlit forth from various points, and to accuse Magistrates
litti 41, Under such circumstances of difficulty and danger,
L°verstepped the strict line of duty, particularly as it
teled te had information resecting Mr.
412 wahs i y n his opinion very unnpecesss.ry. and Mrs.
LAMB deprecated these preliminary discussions
;41;4 Proceedings in a court of justice.—(Hear, hear.)
ariathe House would see the impropriety of conti-
-asq-tit:i" discussion, which could not go on without rip-
-41;" the whole of the case.—(Hear, hear.)
ttli/,'' HARING assured the House, that from the cir-
k iti'',4"es in which he was placed, it was impossible for
have acted otherwise than be did. He hoped
ssea‘"'"ntletnen would perceive that a feeling had already
illith'keitett from one end of the country to the other,
‘votilil have the effect to a certain degree of prep-
, C,, !).'e n-ise•--(Hear )
st,-.ouel that further
t ANS was not aware until mow
I.
u,irige were intended to be taken, or he would not
In e;" '4O much ; he now begged, under those circum-
' thT'o deprecate any further discussion on the subject.
‘4l ',. Petition was read, and ordered to be laid on the
°,Nr• MPZIIIES. then presented, without obser-
l'it4,i"inilar petition from Leamington-Priors, in War-
irt••--Orifered to lie on the table.
brought up a copy of the letters patent
"te,i'leh the Govrnor of the Isle of Wight syn./Ip-
, At t
lil •
ti,"tspf, ALAIER presented a petition from the re-
EL biters "eer in the neighbourhood of Reading, praying that
;1„e;o
tnight be made in the Beer Bill, and that the
attoae nil relailers should be subjected to the same re-
st,, IL The Hon. Member also presented a petition
tr:tifc'ti.tifeclianics, labourers, and inhabitants of Reading,
cadet Of 14'g Of injurious representations respecting the
viN,'"lting open the beer-shops, and that immorality
sitetf, were thereby encouraged. They complained
hr 111:°!'git the interference of clergymen, who
ei Is,r‘gistrates, all their innocent games of skittles,
mllar forhidden, and the petition prayed that
tiattiftrki'n'rveillance might be exercised over tie amuse-
hr, ksautes of the rich, and particularly that cards
Olen s'''aes might lie taken away from the Rev.
,••fr, I,ZI themselves who had thus interfered.
1(41 134TH presented a petition from the Master of
14S 14 Jr.and, praying that he might have the
"'it; his4lll'''inting his own secretary. The Hon. Member
' ;°Eftaur a high character for strict imparti-
attsy prof
legal knowledge, and indefatigable
(lad assured the House that the interests of the

• public, as well as individual interests, were concerned in
the settlement of this question. The question was brought
before the House in coNequence of a controversy which
had for the laSt thirty years subsisted between the Lord
High Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls in Ireland,
relative to the appointment of a secretary to the latter.
The Master of the Rolls in Ireland had a separate and in-
dependent, though subordinate jurisdiction, and every
ore connected, or at all acquainted with him, knew
extremely well the great convenience, if not absolute
necessity to the comfort of the Judge, if nut to the
interests of justice, that he should have in his own
power the nomination and appointment of his con-
fidential secretary. The patent, however, under which
the Master of the Rolls in Ireland held his office, gave it to
him to hold and enjoy in the same manner as the Master of
the Rolls in England enjoyed his, who every one knew had
the power and exercised it of appointing his secretary.
In 1827 Sir Anthony Hart was appointed Lord Chancel-
lor of Ireland, and he, as his predecessor had done,
persevered in his right to appoint the secretary of
the Master of the Rolls. The Master finding mat-
ters thus circumstanced, for the purpose of try-
ing the right of the Lord Chancellor, appointed
the present Recorder of Dublin (Mr. Shaw) to the office
of his secretary, the House would therefore perceive that
in that appointment there Wifi no eye to the emoluments,
and an action was then brought for the purpose of
recovering the fees belonging to that office. Sir Anthony
Hart then issued a similar order to the cre promul-
gated by Mr. Ponsonby, namely, that no order should
be received unless signed by the secretary of the Lord
Chancellor, thus effectually putting it out of the power
of the Master of the Rolls to apply to any other tribunal fur
redress than the Chancellor himself. Mr. Shaw petitioned
the Lord Chancellor on the suhj ct, who, h lying heard
the subject discussed for three or four days, de-
cided that the Master of the Rolls had no authority
whatever to appoint his own secretary. It then became a
question with the Master of the Rolls in what manner
be should seek redress ; search was made fur precedents,
but none were disc overed, and no alternative was
then left him but to apply to the House. Lord Plunkett,
on his appointment to the seals in Ireland, took the course
pursued by Sir A. Hart: that being the case, the Master of
the Rolls had determined upon presenting the present pe-
tition, which prayed that an Act might be passed which
would remove the barriers which now existed to the deter-

mination of the question.
Mr. CRAMPTON (Solicitor-General for Ireland) did
not mean to oppose the reading of the present peti-
tion, nor controvert any of the statements made, or
argue any of the questions of law that had been raised, as
this was not the time fur them ; but he thought it his
duty not to suffer the petition to pass without making a
few observations, in order to prevent misconception. He
quite agreed that the petition was entitled to great con-
sideration from the House, coining from the high
authority it did ; but, though he would pay the
greatest attention and respect to the opinion of the Master
of the Rolls of Ireland, he could not but think, and in
that he had no doubt the House would go along with
him, that that opinion in the present instance was
pregnant with personal feeling, and could net be there-
fore taken in the light of a iudicial one. Still, how-
ever, he could not go along with the Honourable
Member who had presented the petition, in thinking that
the patient question was free from all doubt or difficulty.
He admitted the antiquity of the office of Master of the
Rolls in Ireland ; but on the other hand, it was to be ob-
served, that up to the beginning of the reign of George the
Third such a person as Secretary of the Master of the
Roll, distinct from the Secretary of the Lord Chance•lor,
had never been heard of ; and the first time that a claim
to that effect was trade by the Master of the Rolls, who,
at that time was Mr. Curran, the demand was immediately
repudiated and put down by the Lord Chancellor Pon-
sonby ; and another point that particularly weighed upon
Sir Anthony Hart's attention was, that when a return of
t'ie fees of his office was required from Sir W. M'illithon,

in IS2 1, be made no mention whatever of a separate
secretary of his own, or of his fees. With respect to
Lord Plunkett, he wood not take on himself to say what
would be his decision on the case, should it come before
his notice; but at ad events he might remark, that the
Laid Chancellor had no power of his own to reverse the
decision, till it was legally brought before him by one of
the parties in the shape of a reheari. g; and that had not
been done; so that, at present, of course, the two previous
judicial orders of Lord Ponsonby and Sir A. Hart remained
as they did. With respect to arbitration, he thought it
would be highly indecorous to refer the decisions of those
who had been the highest law authorities of the country to
a subsequent arbitration. As the question now stood, lie
thought that the only way of carrying it further would be
by a distinct legislative enactment; for he did not see how
Lord Plunkett could with any decency take on himself to
reverse the decrees of two of his predecessors on this subject.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the whole question was simp'y
this :—The Master of the Rolls claimed a privilege which
the Lord Chancellor denied ; then if this was the case,
why was it not tried at law, and so settled ?—( Hear, bear.)
Because the Lord Chancellor, by his order, put a veto
upon it. Now, surely that was not a right slate of
things—(Hear, hear, hear !)—and yet that, if they talked
for ever, was the whole state of the case. Having investi-
gated this question in his judicial capacity as a Member
for Parliament, he was bound to say, that in his own
mind he had not the slightest doubt that the Master of the
Rolls possessed the right which he claimed.—(Hear, hear.)
He admitted that the Master of the Rolls had acted in-
judiciously in suffering his right to lie dormant for so
many years; but that was account,,d for in the petition on
the score of del cacy ; and though a man's dwy—and this
was one—ought not to have been sacrificed to motives
of delicacy, still it was a feeling that demanded respect.
He thought that the Hon. and Learne,t Gentleman
(Mr. Crampton,) in admitting that the Master of the
Rolls office was one of prescription, had admitted the
whole of his case.

Mr. KNIGHT thought that the question of the Master
of the Rolls' right on this point hardly admitted of a
doubt ; and he said this after having looked into all the
papers on the subject. The question was one of im-
portance to the public, because the attendance of the
Lord Chancellor's Secretary, or his deputy in the Rohs
Court being very irregular, it frequently happened that
the Court was actually standing still. He trusted, there
fore, that tie House would consider this as as a case which
called for the interference of the House.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON supported the prayer of the
petition.

Sir R. PEEL thought that the House was agreed as to
the fact that the Maser of the Rolls ought to be allowed
to try the right. The Master of the Rolls did not ask the
House to give any opinion on his right, but only that Le
might he able to try it.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE expressed his regret at these
differences among the Law Officers in Ireland, and ex-
pressed a hope that they would both agree in settling it.
He thought the Master of the Rolls was perfectly right in
coining before the House.
Mr. LEFROY also supported the petition.

Sir C. WETHERELL thought the case might be put
into a train of legal investigation and decisio❑ without the
interference of the flow,.

Mr. JOHN CAMPBELL hoped that the Lord Chan-
cellor of Ireland would yield the point withcat carrying
the ease to trial.

Mr. SHAW enter, d into a brief history of the office of
the Master of the Rolls, and contended for the right of
that officer to appoint his own Secretary.
The petition was then litid on the table, and ordered to
he printed.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
On the motion of Mr. RICE, it was ordered that the
House at it rising do adjourn till Monday.
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND.)
The House then went into a Committee on the Public
Works' (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. GOULBURN complained that the improvements
promised by the Government were neither more nor less
than the turning out one set of Commissioners to make
way for another. He thought that the claims of a man
like Mi. Payne, whose abilities were acknowledged, and
who had been thirty-three years a servant of the public,
should not be passed over ; and he moved, therefore, that
the word " three" in clause 5, should be left our, for the
purpose of substituting " three of the present," meaning
Cute mis,ioners of Inland Navigation.
Mr. RICE defended the conduct of the Government,
and observed, that the men they bad selected were the
most skilful and compet,nt. One of them gave up in the
Engineer Department greater emoluments than he would
now receive; the other, Mr. Radcliffe, was one of the
old Commissioners, and appointed by the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) himself; and the nomination
of the third would save a retiring pension.
Mr. STANLEY defended the Irish Government from
the charge of pat tiality or favouritism in the appointments
its question, and to Intained that those appointments, as
respected the activity and intelligence of the parties to be
appointed, were highly creditable.

- Mr. G. DAWSON contended that if there were no par-
tiality or favouritism in the case, individualii, one of whom
ban be, n thirty .three years, and the other sixteen in their
situation, would not be deprived of an office, the duties of
which they had discharged with so much intelligence mid
fidelity.
Mr. HUME opposed the 1, but not on the grounds

alleged by tho Hon. Gentlemen under him. He did not
attribute to his Majesty's Ministers any partiality or fa-
vouritism. God knew, anything but that. It was the
conversation in every place, on every day, that his Majesty's
Alinister% were mote incapable of distinguishing between
their friends and their enemies, than any men who h
ever sat on the Treasury benched; and it would be a
miracle if they could carry on the great measure which
they bad undertaken against the exertions making in hos-
tility to it by official men.• Why, there were the recent
_ .

. -
occurrences at the Dublin election. If he had been ii:
the situation of his Majesty's Ministers he would have
removed half the persons in office who had opposed them
on that occasion. He hoped they would not continue
to be so weak as to be advised by their encodes ; but
that they would rally round their friends. He was
•rte out in these observations by everything that oc-
curred. The majority of the Lord Lieutenants at the
heal of counties were opposed to his M jesty's present
Ministers--[Some Hon. Member exclaimed—•• That's in
the Morning Chronicle!"] To be sure; it was in the
Morning Chronicle. He wished his M.josty's Ministers
would take a leaf out of the Morning Chronicle. They
would consult the feelings and advantage of the country
I.y doing so. He repeated that his Majesty's present Go-
vernment hail acted with more partiality towards those
politically opposi-d to them than any Government that
ltd ever preceded them. It wis not, therefore, on the
ground of that political partiality of Ministers that he op-
posed the Bill. He opposed it because tte appointment
of the Board under the Bill appeared to him to be a
great waste of the public money. He wished to have the
advances for public works for England, Ireland, and Scot
laud, all under the disposal of the unpaid Commissioners
of London. Those Commissioners had disposed of
3,285,000/., with no expence to the count'', but the
trifling one of clerks and house-rent. Why not place at
their disposal the 500,0001 for Ireland? Why have a
local Board ? If it were necessary to employ en 4ineers in
Iceland, let them be employed under the Board settled in
London.

Sir J. NEWPORT had always objected to the Board of
Ireland Navigation, for in fact the Commissioners had
nothing to do but receive their salaries.
Mr. GRATTAN would have liked the Bill better, if
none of the men who were employed before, and had done
nothing, were placed upon the new Board.

Mr.LYTTLETO/s! did not doubt that men might be
found in Ireland, who would ably and conscientiously dis-
charge the duties of Commissioners, and he considered the
Under Secretary, in diminishing the number of Commis-
sioners, had consulted the benefit of the public.
Mr. JEPHSON thought that the system of Commis-
sioners, as proposed by the Bill, was cumbersome, and
the money would not be distributed by them in places
where it was most wanted.

Tile amendment was then negatived without a division,
and the clause agreed -to.

On the suggestion of Mr. DAwsos, the oath in
clause 12 was omitted.

On the questio❑ of the 24th clause,
Mr. HUME objected to the clause, as it gave a power
to the Grand Jury to mortgage the revenues of the county
—a power which he considered of a most dangerous kind,
and which he thought would only lead to corruption anti
abuse.

Mr. DAWSON, on the contrary, was of opinion that
this clause was the best part of the Bill, and would be
found to he productive of the greatest advantages.
Mr. JEPHSON agreed with the Hon. Member for
Middlesex, that this was a tncst dangerous power with
which to entrust Grand Juries. It would enable Grand
Juries to enter upon expensive public works, with the bur-
den of which the public would afterwards be saddled, per-
haps most inconsiderately.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the whole of this Bill was
but trifling with Ireland ; it was but a species of quack
medicine for her evils. tie insisted that the clause now
under consideration threw in the way of Grand Juries a
temptation to create places for themselves and their friends.

BROWNLOW should support the clause, which
he thought would he productive of benefit to Ire►and, a+ it
would enable the Grand Juries to make good roads there—
on advantage that could ❑ot fail to increase the prosperity
cf the cotpary.

Sir H. BATESON should support the clause, though
he admitted that it might give great facilities for corrup-
tion. He trusted, however, they would not be taken ad-
vantage of. He did not think that a great number of
roads was an advantage to a country, because it compelled
the Grand Jury to keep them up.
Mr. GRATTAN should oppose the clause, bccause he
thought it would work mischief. The Grand .lury pre-
sentments had been doubled within these twenty-five years,
and he was sorry to say that it was only necessary to ask
fur a supply, and to have it granted. The t ffect of this
clause was to impose a tax upon the occupier of the land,
and it mightoften beimposed without proper consideration.
Mr. SHEIL said, that all the objections which were
nude to this clause might as well be made to the whole of
the Grand Jury system. He did not expect the clause
would operate injuriously, because it was so guarded with
provisions. He thought, indeed, that this clause was the
most salutary part of the Bill.
Mr. HUME objected on principle to vesting Grand
Juries, or any other body of men, with the power of
mortgaging the revenues of a country, and entering on
works which were to be paid by those who came after
them. He should propose to strike he clause our altogether.
After a few words from Mr. S. RicEand Mr. RUTHVEN,

Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, that the whole of the argu-
ments against this el tuse seerued to proceed on the assump-
tion that the Grand Juries had no interest in the soil which
was to bear the burden, but were only interested in the
misapplication of the money to be raised from it. Now,
he thought that assumption unfound,d, and believed, that
if it were not, this clause was sufficiently guarded to pre-
vent such consequences.
Mr. HUME, after what he had heard from several
Members, would not press his amendment to strike out the
whole of the clause, but would move another amendment,
to the effect that the money borrowed should be paid in
five, instead of in ten years. He moved an amendment
ace, rdingly.
Mr. DAWSON could nut hear these observations about
Grand Juries without protesting against them. He denied
that they were justly chargeable with jobbing.
Mr. CALLAGHAN was very sorry that the Hon.
Member for Middlesex had withdrawn his first amend-
ment. The clause was one to which he (Mr. Callaghan)
most strongly objected. as he thought it would be pro-
ductive of great extravagance in the county expenditure.
Mr. Moue o'l,s:afraid., Mr. Wyse, and Mr. LEFROY
thought that some change in the Grand Jury Laws was
necessary.

. -
Sir R. PEEL opposed the clause, end expressed his
concutrence in the view of the subject taken by the Hon.
Alember for Middlesex. He eared that the money would
be misapplied under the irresponsibility of Grand Juries.
If the Grand Jury Laws were to he amended, it might he
better to postpone this measure until after that object had
been accomplished. This tinkering of the subject be highly
disapproved, for in mending one hole commonly others
were made. He was, at the saute time, unwilling to resist
the progress of a pla❑ which kid even the semblance of
improvement for Ireland, and he would rather apply the
500,0004 to the benefit of Ireland than in England, be-
cause in Ireland it was more needed.

Mr. STANLEY observed, that a Bill had been com-
pletely prepared, and was ready to be submitted to the
House on the first opportunity, for amending the Grand
Jury Laws upon the two great points of responsibility and
publicity. He supported the clause because it was spe-
cially guarded, and could not he made the instrument of
abuse.

Mr. S. Rice, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Callaghan, and Mr.
Blaukney, each said a few words explanatory of the mode
i❑ which the Grand Jury Laws worked in Ireland.
Mr. SIIEIL said, that the taking away of that clause
would destroy all the good of the Bill.
Sir R. PEEL was of the same opinion, that the re-
moval of the clause would render the Bill nugatory. If
the alternative were offered to him, to retain or to reject
the clause, be should certainly retain it. But he thought
it would be an improvement to the clause to substitute five
years for ten.

Mr. JEPHSON hoped that the Hon. Member for Cork
Would not press his motion.
Mr. CALLAGHAN withdrew his amendment.
The House then divided upon Mr. Home's amendment.
For the amendment
Against it
Majority for the original clause —tl9
Immediately a ter the re-admission of strangers to the
gantry, the House again divided—as we understood—
upon the amount of interest payable upon the loans to be
made under the Bill.

The original motion was agreed to : the Members being
81 to 13—majority, 3S.
The other dames were then agreed to.
The House resumed, and the report was ordered to Le
received on Wednesday next.

WATERLOO BRIDGE NEW STREET.
The Waterloo Midge New Street Bill was read a third
time and passed.
Tlie other Orders were then disposed of, and the House
adjz,urned at a Quarter past Two o'clock till Monday.

Despatches were forwarded to Berlin till
night before last from the Prussian Embassy.

FROM THE GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT.

WHITEHALL, SEPT. 13, 1831.
The King haa been pleased to direct letters patent to be passed
under thc Groat Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, granting the dignity °ea Baronet of the said United
Kingdom to the following Gentlemen, and the respective heirs
male of their bodies lawfully begotten, viz.—
Lieut.-General John Slade. _ . _

Lieut.-General Sir William Anson, of Birch-hall, in the county
palatine of Lancaster, K.C.B.
Lieut.-General Kenneth Mackenzie, of Glenberrie, in the county
of Kincardine.
Vice-Admiral Sir Robert Waller Otway, of Brighthelmstone, iu
the county of Sussex, K.C.B.
Major-General Sir Archibald Campbell, K.C.B. and Lieutenant_
Governor of New Brunswick.
Augustus John Foster, of Stone-house, in the county of Louth,
Esq., his Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo-
tentiary to the King of Sardinia.
Sir James M'Grigor, of Campden-hill, in the county of Middle-
sex, M.D. Director-General of the Army Medical Department.
Robert Way Harty, of Prospect-house, Roebuck, in the county
of Dublin, Esq. Lord Mayor of Dublin.
Colonel John Thomas Jones, of Cranmer-hall, in the county
of Norfolk.
Robert Greenhill Russell, of Checquers-court, in the county of
Buckingham, Esq.
NVilliam Chaytor, of Croft, in the county of York, and of Wit-
ton-castle, in the county of Durham, Esq.
William Wrixon Becher, of Ballygiblin, in the county of Cork,
Esq.
Joseph Birch, of the Hazles, in the county palatine of Lan-
caster, Esq
Robert Campbell, of Carrick Buoy, in the county of Donegal],
Esq.
Wilfred Lawson, of Brayton-house, in the county of Cumber-
land, Esq.
John Nugent Humble, of Cloncoskoran, in the county of Water-
ford, Esq.
James Martin Lloyd, of Lancing, in the county of Sussex, Esq.
James Gibson Craig, of Riccaiton, in the county of Mid-
Lothian, Esq.
Joseph Barrington, of the city of Limerick, Esq.
Theodore Henry Layington Broadhead, of Burton, or Monk-
Bretton, in the county of York, Esq.
John Colman Rashleigh, of Prideaux, in the county of Corn-
wall, Esq.
J- Campbell, of Barcaldine, in the county of Argyll, Esq.
Percy Fitzgerald Nugent, of Donore, in the county of West-
meath, Esq.
John James Garbett Walsharn, of Knill-court, in the county of
Hereford, Esq.
William Ileygate, of Southend, in the county of Essex, F.sq.
one of the Aldermen of the city of London.
Thomits-M,Kenny, Esq. one of the Aldermen of the city of
Dublin,
Henry Mex, of Theobalsrs-park, in the county of Hertford, Esq.
Charles Mansfield Clarke, of Dunham Lodge, in the county of
Norfolk, M.D. one of the Physicians iu Ordinary to her Ma-
jesty.