The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-16 00:00:00

TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1836.

telligence, announcing that the National Guard at Madrid
had been disembodied, and that the municipalities had re-
! fused to take and receive the arms of the National Guard?
If such was the fact, would the Noble Lord state what
passing events had occurred to cause such an important
step to be taken ?
Lord PALMERSTON said the Government had re-
ceived information that an attempt had been made at Ma-
drid to proclaim the Constitution of 1812, by a portion of
the National Guard ; that that attempt had been success-
fully resisted by the proper authorities there ; and that in
consequence of this an order had been issued for remo-
delling the National Guard, and for rendering it more con-
formable to the feelings of the people.
Sir GEO. SINCLAIR wished to know whether the
Auxiliaries now in Spain were to be employed against the
Constitutionalists ?
Lord PALMERSTON—The Auxiliaries in Spain are
under the orders of the Spanish Government.—(Hear.)
Lord STORMONT inquired whether the marines were
to be employed against those who proclaimed the Constitu-
tion at Saragossa.
Lord PALMERSTON said it was not likely the squa-
dron would make any opposition at Saragossa.—(Laughter.)
Lord STORMONT had only enquired as to the Ma-
rines—the Marines who were acting on shore, and had
nothing to do with the vessels.
Lord PALMERSTON'was sure the Noble Lord was
quite mistaken in supposing the British Marines had nothing
to do with the British squadron ; they were secretly at-
tached to the British squadron, and were under the exclu-
sive orders of Lord John Hay.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. PRICE wished most distinctly to be informed
whether in the event of the troops in the pay, and being
victualled by this country, meeting with some of :the Con-
stitutionalists, would they remain neutral, or would they
fire upon that party opposed to the Queen ?
Lord PALMERSTON said, most decidedly our troops
in such a case would remain neutral. They were acting
under a treaty which had reference only to the civil war
then raging, and had no reference to such a state of things
as now existed.
Sir JOHN ELLEY said a few words as to the diffi-
culties of General Evans, but was called to order by
The SPEAKER, who said there was no question before
the Chair.
TITHE COMPOSITION (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER this Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Lord MORPETH, the report of the
Committee on the Kingston Harbour Bill was brought up.
On the motion of Mr. F. MAULE, the Lists of Voters
Bill was read a second time.
The same Hon. MEMBER moved the third reading of
the Pensions Duties Bill.
Mr. WARBURTON rose to move the striking out of
the Clause by which the pension granted to the Duke of
Marlborough was exempted from the payment of the pen-
sion duty. He complained that the Members of the Go-
vernment had supported this clause.
Mr. ROBINSON supported the motion of the Hon.
Member for Bridport.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was hard that they should be taunted on one occasion with
making it a Government question, and on another occasion
with not making it a Gevernment question. Several of
the Members of the Government had at a former
period voted and spoken against it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LABOUC HERE defended the course he had pur-
sued, on the ground of the case being doubtful.
Mr. HUME contended that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, as there was a doubt on his mind, should have
given that doubt in favour of the public. A committee ought
to have been appointed to inquire into the merits.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said no
proposition was brought for the appointment of a Committee.
Mr. BROTHERTON said the country could have no
chance of permanent happiness till war was brought into
discredit, and great Generals ceased to be held in such high
estimation. He thought the Duke of Marlborough and his
family had received quite enough of the public money.
Mr. A. TREVOR said it would be a disgrace to the
country to make this paltry deduction from the pension of
a man who had done such eminent services for his country.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON said that, like his Right Hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had a doubt
upon the point, and would vote in favour of that doubt. If
no pension was to be granted again till such eminent ser-
vices as those of the great Duke of Marlborough came be-
fore them, there would be no great danger of squandering
the public money.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said he would support the mo-
tion of the Hon. Member for Bridport. He objected to
the manner in which the question was brought forward. As
tie pension had paid this duty from the time it was first
granted it appeared to him a most extraordinary proceeding
that such a clause should be added to the Bill on bringing
up the report. It should have been discussed in Com-
mittee. The question was not now as to the services of the
great Duke of Marlborough. Those who lived in his day
must have been best able to appreciate them, and they al-
lowed the deduction to be made from his pension. It was
so made in 1720 and 1760. Were they now to say that
they knew better ? They ought to be cautious how, in
times like the present, they imposed a perpetual annuity
of 1,3004 a year on the people of England. The grant to
the Duke of Wellington was quite a different thing, be-
cause in that case the exemption of his pension from any
duty was made perfectly clear and intelligible. Was the
mere existence of a doubt any reason for imposing such a
burthen on the country ?
Colonel SIBTHORP would oppose the motion of the
Member for Bridport. The pension of the great Duke of
Marlborough stood upon a different footing to pensions of
Chancellors of the Exchequer, and many other public men,
who, in place of serving their country, might have inflicted
upon it the most serious injuries.
Mr. EWART and Sir G. GREY supported the pro-
position of Mr. Warburton.
The gallery was cleared for a division, and during the
exclusion of strangers, Mr. HARCOURT opposed the
motion of the Member for Bridport at some length. The
House then divided—
Against the clause
In favour of it 34

Majority against the clause —2
The Bill was then passed.
The Public Walks (Ireland) Bill went through a Com-
mittee, and was ordered to be reported to-morrow.
JEWISH CIVIL DISABILITIES BILL.
On the question that this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. A. TREVOR recorded his opinion against it before
Hon. Members gave their final consent to th House being
un-Christianised.--(A laugh.) It was possible that if the
Bill were passed the House might be composed entirely of
Jews, in which case it would be un-Christianized. He
moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a third time
that day three months.
The question was then put.
Mr. BORTH WICK supported the amendment.—
(Loud cries of " Question.")
Colonel SIBTHORP again recorded his opposition to
the Bill.
Sir C. B. VERE opposed the Bill. The admission of
Dissenters to Parliament was fraught with danger to the
Established Church, but the consequences to be appre-
hended from the present measure were far more to be
dreaded.
The House divided—
For the original motion
For the amendment

Majority

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.
Mr. AGLIONBY moved the further consideration of
the report.
Colonel SIBTHORP moved, as an amendment, that it
be further considered that day six months.
Mr. A. TREVOR seconded the amendment.
The House divided.
For the motion 26
For the amendment 4
There being only 35 Members present, including the
tellers and the Speaker, the House adjourned at Eight
o'Clock.

ROUSE OF LORDS, Auousr 15.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat at five o'clock.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented a petition
from the Dean and Chapter of Winchester against the
Fourth Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission.
SLAVE COMPENSATION.
The Slave Owners' Compensation Bill went through a
Committee, and was reported.
The Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill was reported.
The Militia Pay Bill was read a second time.
The Medical Witnesses Bill was read a third time and
passed.
Several other Bills on their Lordships' table were ad-
vanced a stage.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY and others from the Commons
brought up the South Metropolitan Cemetery Bill, with
the Lords' amendments agreed to.

IRISH CORPORATIONS.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented a petition from
the Corporation of Dublin against the Bill for restraining the
Alienation of Corporate Property in Ireland, which would
prevent them paying a judgment debt of 74,0001. due by
that Corporation.

A Message was sent to the Commons requesting a Con-
ference, on the Prisoners' Counsel Bill.
SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES.
The Duke of WELLINGTON begged to know whe-
ther the Noble Viscount (Melbourne) had any objection
to lay upon the table the report of the Commissioners on
which the Scotch Universities Bill was founded.
Lord MELBOURNE had no objection to do so.

PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL—CONFERENCE
WITH THE COMMONS.
The following peers were appointed as Managers on the
part of their Lordships of the Conference with the Commons
on the Prisoners' Council Bill—the Earl of Shaftesbury,
Lord Roslyn, Lord Brownlow, Lord Stradbroke, the Bishop
of Rochester, Lords Kenyon and Strafford.
The Managers of the Conference having retired, returned
in a few minutes, and Lord Shaftesbury read the reasons of
the Commons for disagreeing with their Lordships' amend-
ments.

On the motion of LORD LYNDHURST the rea-
sons of the Commons were ordered to be taken into consi-
deration to-morrow.
CORPORATE PROPERTY (IRELAND.)
The Corporate Property (Ireland) Bill was read a se-
cond time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.
Mr. BERNAL and others from the Commons brought up
the Municipal Officers Election Bill, and the Poor Law
Loan Bill, which were severally read a first time.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS.
On the motion of Lord MELBOURNE, the Commons
Amendments to the Lords' Amendments to the Registra-
tion of Births' Bill were taken into consideration. The
Noble Lord said he would shortly state to their Lordships
the nature of the amendments made by the Commons.
The third amendment provided for marriages of Jews
generally, whereas the clause as it originally stood provided
only for the marriage of two persons in a Jewish synagogue.
Lord ELLE N BOROU G H did not see any objection ex-
cept to the first amendment, which he was afraid would en-
able the Registrar-General to exceed his powers. He be-
lieved there were no amendments to the Marriage Bill.
Lord MELBOURNE did not think there was any dan-
ger of the Registrar-General exceeding his powers.
Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from the li-
censed victuallers of the metropolis, praying that some
plan might be adopted for the regulation of inns and hotels.
IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES BILL.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the
Irish Church Temporalities Bill was received, and the Bill
was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
STANNARIES BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of FALMOUTH, the House
went into a Committee on the Stannaries Bill.
Lord LANGDALE wished to say a few words on the
Bill which had been brought forward, in consequence of
the great inconvenience that had taken place by this
jurisdiction. He felt no objection whatever to the
establishment of effectual Local Courts ; nay, so far
from having any objection, it was his opinion with proper
safeguards that they would be very valuable ; but be did
not think the Bill provided those necessary safeguards.
The Judge was to be appointed by the Duke of Cornwall,
if there was such a person, and he was the person to try
cases between the Duchy of Cornwall and other parties.
So that the appointment and removal of this Judge,
which could be done by the counsel of the Duchy, was in
the nomination of one of the parties concerned. The man-
ner in which the salary of the Judge was to be paid was also
highly objectionable, and was one which he was quite con-
vinced would not meet the approval of their Lordships.
He also objected to the system upon which appeals were to
be conducted, because the Lord Warden could not be ju-
dicially informed upon many of the matters that came be-
fore him. He found there was nothing in the Bill of an
ultimate appeal to that House, to which the people of
England were accustomed to look up. It would be, there-
fore, most desirable that there should be appeals either to
that House, or to the Judicial Committee of his Majesty's
Privy Council. These were objections which should not be
lightly regarded ; but if it was their Lordships' pleasure to
proceed with the Bill, he should feel it his duty to suggest
such amendments as seemed to him necessary.
After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR,
and from Lord WYNFORD in opposition to the Bill,
The Earl of FALMOUTH supported the Bill, which
he observed had received the sanction of his Majesty's Law
Officers.
The clause was then agreed to.
Upon Clause 2,
Lord WYNFORD proposed as an amendment that the
Vice-Warden should be removable by the Duke of Corn-
wall, or during his minority by the King, under the certifi-
cate of the Barons of the Exchequer, it appearing to them
that there were sufficient grounds for removal.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that it would
be better to make the Judge removable by an address of
both Houses of Parliament. He should most decidedly
object to placing this Court under the controul of the Barons
of the Exchequer.
Lord HOLLAND said that it would be rather extra-
ordinary for the two Houses of Parliament to address the
King on the subject of private property, for such the Duchy
of Cornwall could only be considered.
Lord LANGDALE thought it would be better to make
the Judge removable by an address in the ordinary way.
Lord WYNFORD felt the difficulty stated by the Noble
Baron (Holland), and should substitute for his original
amendment that the Vice-Warden should be removable by
the King upon the petition of the two Houses of Parliament.
The question waslhen put, and the clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 were agreed to.
Upon clause 5,
Lord LANGDALE proposed that a power of appeal
should be given to the House of Lords.
The Earl of FALMOUTH would suggest that the
Lord Warden should be associated with a Baron of the
Exchequer, instead of three Lords of the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council.
The amendment was then agreed to, and the clause, as
amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Upon the 6th clause a provision was inserted, upon the
motion of Lord LANGDALE, to the effect that the
Vice-Warden should hereafter discharge the same duties
as have hitherto been discharged by the stewards.
•
Upon clause 7,
Lord WYNFORD proposed that power should be given
to apply to the Vice-Warden for a new trial, and that
upon a refusal to grant such a new trial, or an improper
allowance of it, application upon a motion for a new trial
might be made to the Courts of Westminster.
After a short conversation, the clause was postponed.
Clauses from 8 to 35 inclusive were agreed to, after the
introduction of a few verbal amendments in some of them.
Upon clause 36,
Lord LYNDHURST had an amendment to propose.
The establishment of this Court was clearly an experiment,
and the Learned Gentleman who would preside over it
could not possibly form any idea of the nature of the duties
which he might be called upon to discharge, or of the suc-
cess which might attend the establishment of the Court ;
and it would be a considerable hardship upon him if, pre-
viously to a certain time, he were not permitted to return
to his profession with the same advantages which he enjoyed
before relinquishing it. He should propose the insertion of
words to the following effect :—And be it enacted that the
Vice-Warden for the time being shall not after the lapse of
three years practise as a barrister ; provided also, that
during the same three years he shall not practise in any case
arising within the jurisdiction of the County of Cornwall.
The Earl of FALMOUTH was surprised, after the dis-
cussions which the measure had undergone in the other
House, that that proposition, supposing it to come from the
Learned Gentleman himself, should have been made at tha
time.

Lord LYNDHURST said that the Learned Gentleman
had acted with perfect fairness.
Lord WYNFORD said, considering the eminence in his
profession of the gentleman intended for the office, it was not
fair to call upon him at once to give up his practice in West-
minster Hall. No doubt persons might be found who would
undertake the office upon the terms proposed, but not per-
sons anything like equal in station or talents.—( Hear.)
Lord L ANGDALE said if that were nothing but an
experiment, if their Lordships could not foresee the nature
of the jurisdiction and the proceedings in this Court, then
they were proceeding in a manner that was rather strange,
by enacting a permanent measure ; if such were the case
they ought to introduce a clause, limiting the operation to
a certain fixed period. If this, however, were to be a per-
manent Bill, he objected to the Vice-Warden acting as a
barrister : and he objected totally to the allowing him to
use this Bill as an experiment in order to try which line of
life best suited his convenience and prospects.—( Hear, hear.)
If they chose to limit the operation of the Bill he, perhaps,
might not object ; but he most certainly did object to the in-
sertion of this amendment, which was inconsistent with the
Bill itself.
Lord LYNDHURST would have no objection to a
clause rendering the Bill only temporary ; but certainly it
was an experiment.
Lord HOLLAND supported the clause.
The amendment was then negatived without a division,
and the clause agreed to. Th remaining clauses were
also agreed to ; and the House then resumed. The Re-
port was ordered to be received to-morrow.
CORPORATE PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.
Viscount MELBOURNE moved the second reading
of the Corporate Property (Ireland) Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON objected to the pre-
amble of the Bill, and, for one, would never consent to it.
The preamble assumed that there was a great degree of cor-
ruption in sundry towns of Ireland, which he thought the
details of the Bill were not calculated to correct.
Lord LYNDHURST also objected to the preamble of
the Bill. The party with whom he had acted had never
admitted the corruption assumed by the preamble. The
clauses which related to conveyances being made null and
void if fraudulent was only doing that which the law had
done already. The Noble Baron then expressed his de-
cided objection to the other clauses, which he characterised
as moq unjust and absurd.
The Earl of FALMOUTH objected to the Bill. The
preamble was abominable and iniquitous, proceeding upon a
libellous assumption.
Lord HOLLAND said that the Noble and Learned