The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON', MONDAY. JULY 25, 1836.

in ittention to their public duties. We arc fully aware
of the frivolous remarks to which this appeal may ex-
pose us ; but we shall be well content it even at that
cost we secure the object which we in this ar_.!uinent
propose to ourse!v—the arousing the Conservative
power at a moment when we feel convinced its exerciie
must .prove triumphant. In proof of the strenuous
crofts made by the Whigs and Radicals to maintain
their curious continuation, we may observe, that of
the three measures having reference to the Church,
O'Connell
proposed, at the meeting at the Fo-
rcign-office, to accede to the suggestion of Lord
John Russell, that two of the Bills should be aban-
doned. To this, as a point of party tactics, there could
be small objection. But what will our readers think
avben they are told that the very two Bills thus
abandoned by Lord J. Russell at the Whig-Radical
Osembiage were by his Lordship himself declared to
be foillicoming, in reply to a question from Sir James
Graham ? We do not accuse the noble leader of
temp House of Commons of any preconcerted insin-
cerity in this ; but we have undoubtedly a right
to chare;e him with great negligence, when receiving
the orders of his superior in a matter so important as
that under consicieso.tion. Yet let us deal leniently
with the Noble Lord. Having two classes of Radi-
cals to conciliate, the Eoslish tint], the Irish, it would
be unfair to press him too severely on the subject of
the O'Connell mandate. The English Radicals,
.with
rare patience, have waited for the only encouragement
to which persons of that description are sensible, and
they have waited in vain. But not alone have their
own views been frustrated ; they have had the add-
tional mos:ification of witnessingthe perfect triumph
of their Hiberi:.
an rivals. The rent so long col-
lected in Ireland ;Yas not likely to provoke more
than a moderate envy.- ,But when in England, not
only political influence, but isecuniary advantage, re-
warded the determination of Mr. Daniel OTonnsll to
support the Government at all hazards, the long-
suffering Radicals, not without reason, rebelled, And
left it to Lord John Russell to say whether he, could
hope to carry on his Government without their assis-
tance. The Noble Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment is understood to have carefully compared his
chances of support with reference to the Radicals of
England and those of Ireland. The disputed point
was carried by a whisk of the " tail." And the cackle
of the Middlesex goose, the bray of the animal of Bath,
the ejaculations from Liskeard, and the remonstrances
from Marylebone, were all unheeded under the domi-
nant influence of the Irish howl: It is understood,
however, that these sweet voices were harmonised on
Saturday into a choral song of Ministerial permanency
ine• to any p .
Nothitsg could be more natural. Yet, without pretend
vaticination, we venture to
predict thas' these elements, so loosely combined, cannot
possibly hold together, and that the only satisfaction
which will remain to the unparalleled Administration
will be, that each individual member thereof will be
entitled to boast in the words of the quotation used by
Lord J. Russell at the Bristol dinner—" What is done
is done, and I have had my hour."—Times.
The Liberal interest is. in no pleasant predicament,
either for itself or for the country, at the present 'mo-
ment ; but it is not our fault that matters have at
length come to a pass which is calculated to damage
the Government on the one hand, and to favour the
aspirations of the Tories on the other. Ever since the
accession to office of the Melbourne Ministry, we re-
peatedly, and in the most friendly spirit, warned them
against the danger of making concessions to Toryism,
in the hope of conciliating a party whose interests,
feelings, and habits, being diametrically opposed to
those of the people, renders it impossible ever to -con-
ciliate them without a sacrifice of the public good,
far too great to be compensated by their treacheroug
forbearance, or equally treacherous support. The
danger which we apprehended is now arrived. The
Estaelished Church Bill for England, prepared in the
spirit w'lich we deprecated, and brought before the Le-
gislature es
evered with the leprosy of High Church re-
commendation, is likely to be the cause of no small de-
gree of difficulty and embarrassment to the Govern-
'neut. A large po.:t
ion of the Liberal Members of the
House of Commons, sseha hitherto afforded the Admi-
nistration most able and escient support, are resolved
to withdraw from beimg pan: ,es to a Bill which leaves
so many and so gross abuses in I,!ie Church- establish,
naent unredressed. But while we blame Ministers for
bringinc, forward a measure under ausc ices which, in
themselves, were a guarantee for its being inefficient
and unsatisfactory, and we do not consider the: those
Members should be held free of censure who aequiesCed
in the progress of the Bill to its present stage, and
Ytow, at the last hour, when the Government was
confidently expecting their co-operation, turn round in
the very face of the enemy, who is anxiously Watching
a favourable opportunity of attack, and leave Ministers
and their more steady supporters exposed to the whole
brunt of the action. We denounced the Bill on its
first introduction as a mere mockery of Reform, and
should have been louder in our condemnation of it,
but from an unwilligness to distract public attention
from other measures of Government, which in being
rejected from the Lords must involve a change in the
elements of the Constitution ; but though we are of opis
nion that the Bill deserves to be scouted by all true Re-
formers, and that the report and recommendations on
which it is founded should have been spurned from the
first by the Ministry, yet it doss not appear altogether
fair in any liberal Member of the House of Commons,
after having given a silent sanction, or at least a quali-
fied assent to the several stages of its progress, now to
turn round in opposition, and by their desertion leave
Ministers, and the other and better measures with
•which they are identified, unsuppotted in the hour of
need. This is a time above all others when the friends
and representatives of the people should be united, and
merge all minor differences in a common effort to carry
into effect those first great changes which the necessi-
ties of the times most unperativelv call for ; and it would
be as painful to us to have a suspicion forced upon us
that one party seceded from the Ministry from disap-
ponted ambition, as that another continued in their
support flom the enjoyment or expectation of an undue
share of patronage. Even if the Bill were not alto-
gether se ohjeclionablee as it is—the very Commission
proposed to be appointed to watch over its execution
would afford sufficient grounds for its rejection.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the
Bishops of London and Gloucester, are the last
to wh,-.111 any act for purifying the abuses of • the
Church sl:Culd be confided. What ought a Reform
Ministry to ;have to do with such persons as Dudley
Earl of Ilarro...:,by, the Right Hon. Henry Hobltouse, or
the Right Hon. Sir Henbert Jenner ? What right bad
they to incorporate them as the Ecclesiastical
di
clelsiasi( theyticalCr)tit
stoners of England ? further, why
charge them trout the duties imposed upon them by their
• Tory patrons, and replace then; by men of a more re-
forming spirit? The nomination of sod) persons " in
perpetual succession" as the " Ecclesiaitical Commis-
sioners of England," is, in itself, a pledge than Reform
Ministry could not intend a system so flagrantly (z..leu-
hated to perpetuate abuse to be of a permanent charac-
ter. Besides: there are two other Bills. L--the Church
Discipline Bill and the Ecclesistical Revenues Bill—in
progress, which, if passed, would render it impossible
for c'the Church to escape a single session without the
whole country with one voice proelaimincr its desire for
the removal of so iniqUitous a systein of Ecclesiastical
Government. The question now to be decided between
the two parties is, which is to recede---t;ze English and
Scotch Radical Members, or the Members 'of the Go-
vernment ? The predicament in which both are pigged is
by no means enviable ; but we are, nevertheless, ofopi...
mon that either may retire with unscathed honour from
the contest. The Radical party have asserted their opi-
nions candidly and • honestly ; and their constituents
can assuredly find no fault with them, if, after having
done so, they decline by a division to peril an Adminis-
tration which is the only safe-guard against another
attempt at Tory domination ; and, on the other hand,
aye can see no valid reason why his Majesty's Govern-
mina should press to a conclusion a Bill which is in
every respect prospective, and whose main provisions
„cannot come perfectly into operation for at least the
neeixt fifteen years. We would, therefore, pray the
. .
Adomistration to postpone the Bill for further consi-
and not to deem their deratis'nshonour implicated in
carryitig a measure which has to a great extent been
forced upon them, and to whose errors, only disco-
vered at the* eleventh hour, they cannot, whatever
understanding' !may have existed, be considered mo-

rally bound ; but we would more imperatively urge
on both parties the extreme necessity of mutual com-
promise and mutual conciliation. It is not the in-
terests of England only, or of Ireland or Scot-
land, which are involved in any breach between the
Liberal Members of the House of Commons—the
cause of Liberalism calls upon every Well-wisher of
the people of Europe to be united, and to sink every
minor difference of opinion for the sake of promoting
a cause which all have at heat t, and which is now in
the greatest jeopardy. Let the Melbourne Ctbinet
be compelled to resign, and the inevitable consequence
will be, a reign of unprincipled Toryism., both at home
and abroad. We shall not only see England agitated,
from one end of its confines to the other, by dissatis-
faction and disquietude, and Ireland exposed to nearly
all the horrors of a civil war, but Toryism predominant
over the whole continent of Europe. Portugal; per-
haps, stripped of its free Constitution—Spain laid
prostrate at the feet of the Carlists—Lonis Philippe
rampant over the small remains of liberty which exist
in France—the mouths of the Danube closed against
English commerce—and every safeguard now esta-
blished for the maintenance of our power in the East
overthrown, to propitiate the grasping spirit, of the
Emperor of all the barbarians. For what objects are
the Russian Envoys now here present? For what es-
pecially has the Chancellor of all the Russias been
sent here ? Is it to favour the cause of liberalism ? Is
it to announce the ready compliance of the Czar with
the demands of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs for the
free passage ofthe Danube ? Is it to announce that Russia
has no schemes of ambition either upon Turkey, upon
Persia, or upon our Indian dominions ?—or rather, is
it not to endeavour to blast those domestic reforms
which are so much needed in every part vf the United
Kingdom ; and by the basest intrigues to oust from its
place of power the only Government that ever dared
fearlessly and fairly to do justice to Ireland, and to
every other question of reform which its situation and
the time of Parliament would allow it to bring for-
ward? To-morrow it is possible we may find room for
1 a portrait, from unquestionable authority, of the prin-
cipal personage who figures in the new, but not unex-
pected, Rus,;:an Ambassadorship.—Morn. Advertiser.
• The description %,,,;:ich we published on Saturday of
the Whig-Radical fracas Downing-street, on the
preceding day, was substantially direct. It is con-
firmed in all its important particulars by ti Ministerial
and Movement journals. And in the single insiL;nce
in which any of our Ministerial Contemporaries venture
to impeach our accuracy they do so upon grounds
which are not merely insufficient for that purpose, but
which really show that even in this disputed particular
we were strictly accurate. Before we say a word,
however, upon.the comparatively unimportant subject
of our own accuracy, we must hasten to communicate
to our readers as fully as our information will permit
what has taken place since the fierce altercation of
Friday between the late belligerent, but now high con-
tracting, parties. We anticipated on Saturday that the
time rescued from the pressing demands of public
business in the House of Commons, by the ex-
ertions of Mr. Charles Wood to keep Members out
of the House at four o'clock on Friday, would be di-
ligently employed " to soften asperities, to allay
passions, to overcome scruples, to subjugate or pur-
chase opinions." We now announce that the interval
thus gained has been diligently and successfully em-
ployed for these purposes. The conflicting .parties
have agreed upon the terms, not of a solid and durable
peace, but of an armistice—a convenient and tempo-
rary cessation of hostilities. The conditions of this
honourable compact are, we believe, the following :
The Melbourne Government are to be -permitted to
carry the third reading of the "Established Church
Bill" without any violent explosion of displeasure or
resentment on the part of the Radicals, although some
individual Radicals, who are more deeply pledged than
the rest, are to be at liberty to vote against it. In
order to carry this article into effect in the most con-
venient manner, it is understood that those Members of
the Radical party who cannot, consistently with their
past language and bearing, remain silent or speak with
moderation upon the subject, will to-morrow find it
necessary for their health, after the fatigues of the
Session, to take a ride or drive out of town, or a
steam-boat excursion, or any other agreeable recreation
which may better suit their taste or convenience. It
is agreed, in the second place, that his Majesty's Mi-
nisters, in return for the indulgence and forgiveness
thus graciously accorded to them, shall abandon, first,
the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, which
they have already advanced to its last stage in the
,'-louse of Commons, in the belief that it is a judicious
anti ~eneficial measure for the Church and the country;
and, secOndlY, the Church Discipline Bill, introduced
with the sutTort of Government in the Upper House,
of which all tho members of his Majesty s Govern-
ment must be presui2ed to have expressed their appro-
bation in Council, and of
.which all those who have
seats in the House of Lords, including the Premier,
have publicly recorded their approik:tion as members of
the Legislature. If this be not souncLog " the base
string of humility " we are at a loss to know what is.
But deeper degradation than even this has been
submitted to, in order to pacify the unmerci-
ful Radicals, and to enable. Ministers to retain
those miserable places which it is now evident
they prize more highly than the sense of public
duty, than the suggestions of conscience, or than
even that personal honour of which Lord John Russell
is reported to have made a vain and idle parade at the
stormy meeting on Friday. There is a third condition
of this treaty, as we are informed and believe, which
we cannot transcribe, and which we feel assured will
not be read by any manly and honest Englishman
without a burning sense of shame and indignation at
the insolence which dictated and the unutterable base-
ness which accepted it. Lord John Russell, we are
told, is bound by compact with the Radicals to get up
to-night in the House of Commons, and declare that
the Bill which lie and his colleagues have advanced to
a third reading, and are about to pass, " the Estab-.
lished Church Bill," is a very insufficient and unsatis-
factory measure ; that it is good for little if regarded
in any other light than as a small step in the progress
of Parliamentary interference with the rights and pro-
perty of the Church ; that, offered by the heads of
the Church with a view to permanent peace and
security, it is just worth accepting as a ground-
work cud an engine of future 'and nnplacable war.
This is the submission which, we understand, Minis-
ters lace agreed to offer to their Radical allies, and, if
this information be correct, we do not hesitate to say
that time surrender on the part of Ministers is unlimited
and complete. It is giving up, in fact, the whole sub-
ject of controversy, for it is plainly impossible that the
House of Lords should give their concurrence to a Bill
sent up to them from the House of Commons with
such a character as Lord John Russell, in compliance
with this condition of the treaty, will have affixed to
his measure. It is already seen how pliant the Minis-
ters of the Crown have been in their negociation with
the Radicals. It is nut difficult to see that they
will have sacrificed the interests of the country and
their own honour in vain. The party with whom
they have been dealing is one which will be satis-
fied with nothing ilhort of . complete masterdom.
We cannot imagine anythm which Ministers
must not be prepared to yield if Off have be-
come parties to such a treaty as is above desargled,
with the exception of place. But even this, which is
plainly the only thing they prize, will not long be spared
to them. Their allies, seeing bow easy it has been to
seize the reality of power, will not be long con-
tent without its name, and its emoluments.
The following article, which we extract from the
Spectator,
and which is believed to be the production
of one of the Lading
mons, shows but too Radicals in the House of Com-
abject concessions,
iplainly that Ministers, with all
their
-I,„:'e obtained merely a tem-
porary respite
to John Russell
endeavoured to show that he had been misled by
-1
his Ra-
dical opponents into the belief that they approved or
Bills ; and Mr. Hume pleaded guilty to the charge of neg-
ligence, but retorted upon Lord John that the confidence
of the Liberals had been misused by Government. Upon
a review of the course taken by Ministers, we cannot
perceive that they are entitled to reproach Mr. Hume
and those who act with him. Ministers introduced
three Bills, founded upon four Reports of the Ecclesi-
astical Commissioners. Of these, one, the Church
Discipline Bill, was introduced into the House of Peers ;
and little objection, from laymen at least,- has been made

to 'it as yet. The other two, the Established Church Bill •
a!qi the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill (the first
fo: the regulation of episcopal incomes and duties, the
second having reference to the patronage of Deans and
CSapters and the augmentation of benefices out of eat he-
drill revenues), have been brought to their last stage in the
house of Commons ; though, so I.ttle do I\temh3rs and
ref,orters know of what is done in Parliament that the
general impression among both has been that the Estab-
lished Church Bill alone has been in regular progress
through the House. This Bill was brought' in on the 20th
of. May, and the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill
on the Bth of June. The third and fourth Reports of
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, cri• which they were
respectively founded, were placed in the hands of Mem-
brs about the same time. Lord John Russell complains.
that no opposition was given to these Bills till they had
p.issed through certain stages, meaning, we suppose, the
first and second readings. To this it must be replied,
that the first reading was managed so as to pass as a matter
of form merely ; and that, for the convenience of Mi-
nisters, the discussion was not taken on the second read-
ing, but postponed until the _motion for going into Com-
mittee, on the Bth of July ; when, for the first time, Lord
John Russell explained the provisions of the Established
Church Bill to the House. On that occasion the Liberals
offered strenuous opposition to the measure. Mr. Lushing-
ton, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Harland, Mr. Wason; Mr.. Hume,
Mr. Lennard, Mr. Buxton, and Mr. Charles Buller, all
spoke in decided disapprobation ; and, on the question of
translation of the Bishops, divided the House against Mi•
ulster:. Ample warning of what the Ministerial Leader
might expect was thus given a fortnight ago.
" But it is said that the Radicals should have read the
Commissioners' reports and the Bills in the interval between
the first and second reading. True, they ought ; but the
fact is, that human strength and faculties would break
down under the task of mastering the contents of all the
Parliamentary papers which it is the duty of Members to
read and digest. Besides, we find that during the interval
mentioned the Irish Municipal Bill, the Irish Tithe Bill, the
English Tithe Bill, and many other measures of great import-
ance, were pressed on the attention of Parliament. It really
seems as much as Ministers could expect that, on the very
first regular discussion ofthe Church Bill—a discussion which
had been postponed to suit their convenience—the Liberals
spoke out against them. It would be a poor cause for Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Hume, Mr. Duncombe, and other representa-
tives of large constituencies, to allege, that because they had
been persuaded by Ministers not to oppose the second read-
ing, therefore they were bound not to oppose the third, but
suffer bad Bills to become laws. These gentlemen have their
constituents to look to ; and it is not surprising that, at the
meeting, yesterday, they were- proof against the threats of
Lord John Russell and the entreaties of Mr. O'Connell,
and refused to be " whipped" into the House to aid in,
passing the Tory Bills.
4" The question, however, now is, what will be done ?
Ministers say they will resign, rather than abandon the
position which they have so unwisely taken up ; because,
say they, our personal honour' is pledged to perseverance.
It is their own fault that their personal honour is pledged
to carry bad measures. Their-first duty is care of the na-
tional weal, to which all other considerations should yield ;
and courageous statesmen, of a high order of mind, would
at once admit their error, and retrace their steps. Post-
ponenzent of the Established Church Bill' is the precise,
business-like, and decorous course of dealing with it ; for it
is perfectly clear that it has not been deliberately considered.
But Ministers stand upon their notions of personal honour,
and will not give up their Bills. There is probably suffi-
cient commiseration for their unhappy plight to allow them
to crawl out of the dilemma. There is no wish on the part
of any section of the Liberals to compel them to resign ;
above all, to resign on this miserable ground, chosen for
them by the Tories. IVhile those Members who are pledged
to oppose the Bills by their votes will undoubtedly adhere
to their pledges, it is probable that others will allow the Bills
to pass under protest, and with a distinct understanding
that the arrangement is merely temporary, and that the
whole question is speedily to be opened up again."
The manner in which Ministers are treated in this
article, written immediately after the 'conclusion of
such a treaty as we have described, indicates pretty
clearly that other mortifications and disasters are in
store for them, to end in that greatest of all imagin-
able disasters to them—their ignominious expulsion
from place. It is now time that we should say a word
or two in reply to the contradiction by the Ministe-
rial journals of our assertion, that Mr. C. Wood
was despatched from Downing-street in all haste on
Friday, to prevent the - formation of a House.
This contradiction is founded upon the fact which
we communicated to our readers on Saturday,
that Mr. C. Wood and eleven other gentle-
men, holding office under the Government, were.
present in the House at four o'clock on Friday.
To be sure they were present.. The lobby
and the House are very near to each other, and any
man of moderate activity may be present in each alter-
nately, five tunes in a minute. Mr. Charles Wood,
we repeat it, went down with the instruction to keep
Members out of the House, so that forty should not
be present when the Speaker counted the niimbers.
We repeat, that he strictly obeyed this instruction.
And if he himself, and twenty other Ministerialists,
were actually in the House, taking special care that
they made part of a number. less than forty, what has
this to do with the question ? Or what can it prove,
unless it can be that Mr. C. Wood was willing to dis-
play the small dexterity which he foolishly thought
might help to save appearances.—Morning Post.

MORAL LAW AND PUBLIC OPINION.-Sup-
pose, with respect to vices, the highest degree of reprobation
in the moral law to be indicated by 20, and to descend by units
as the reprobation become less severe : and suppose we put 20
for ,the highest offence according to popular opinion, and di-
minish tin number as it accounts less of the offence, we should
probably be presented with some such gradation as this
Moral Public
Law. Opinion.
Murder
Human de.truction under other names ...... 18 ... 0
Unchastity, if of women
Unehastity, if of men
Theft

Fraud and other modes of dishonesty
Lying y
Lying for particular purposes, or to particular /17 2or 0
classes of persons
Resentment, and every inferior gradation ...... 16 6
Profaneness, and every inferior gradation
We might make a similar statement of the virtues.—Dymond's
Principles of Morality.
GENIUS AND MADNESS.—Poets, and those in
whom the imaginative faculty is inordinately developed, are
particularly liable to morbid affections of the mind. Aristotle
laid it down as a maxim, that "Nallum niagnum inaeniuni sine
mixture insanice." This philosopher carried the sentiment to
so great an extent, that he affirmed no poet was in possession
of his right.mind. He quotes, in illustration of his opinion,
the case of Marcus, a citizen of Syracuse, who, when he had
lost his senses, became a fine poet ; but who, on recovering
them, ceased to posses the talent. It has been maintained, for
similar reasons, by the poet Dryden, that—
" Great wit to madness nearly is allied,
And thin partitions do these bounds divide."
The same rule applies to the extraordinary developement of
any, or all, of the mental faculties. In illustration of this we
may mention the names of the poets Cowper, Collins, Tasso,
and Nathaniel Lee. It is also said, that the illustrious author
of the " Principia" was mentally afflicted when he wrote his
comment on the Revelations. Lucretius was supposed to ha
insane when he composed the splendid work " De Rerum
Natura," more particularly those passages relating to death
and the state of the soul, in his third book. Des Cartes died
of an affection of the brain. Lord Byron frequently laboured
under excessive exaltation of sentiment. The mind of our
sweet poet Burns was frequently influenced by delusions of
the imagination. The late Mr. Hogg appears to have been
somewhat similarly affected. Sophocles was accused of
,N E./Inc before the tribunal, and only acquitted of insanity
by -reciting his " Edipus" at Colonos. Pascal, the mathe-
matician, was hypochondriacal. The great novelist and poet,
Sir Walter Scott, suffered through the same cause. Swift
and Rousseau were insane. Luis de Camoens died whilst
under the influence of this disease, at Lisbon ; and the immor-
tal author of " Don Quixotte," he who, according to Byron,
" laughed Spain's chivalry away," died mad in an hospital at
Madrid.—Neville on Insanity.
DESTRUCTIVE FIRE AT PLYMOUTH —Ply-
mouth has again been visited by that most fearful of all scourges
-Are; but, in the present instance, it is satisfactory to state
that, thong' the destruction of property was far greater, it
was still unaccompanied by that loss of life which rendered the
late fire in the Citadel so peculiarly distressing. The flames
were first discovered shortly after 12 o'clock on Saturday
se'ennight, issuing from the windows of a house in Treville-
street, No. 56, the lower part of which was occupied by Mr.
Knighton, as a baker's shop. An alarm was quickly given,
and as soon as time permitted, all the engines in the neighbour-
hood, including the Royal Marine, Artillery, Dock Yard, and
Citadel, were on the spot, under the directions of the mili-
tary ; but, from some extremely culpable cause, near an hour
elapsed before a supply of water could be obtained, and the
fire consequently soon assumed a most alarming aspect, extend-
ing to Mrs. Palmer's and Mr. Bowyer's, on the west, and
Mr. Fry's, and a vacant house lately occupied by Mr. Honey,
hatter, on the east—the whole of which, in tho end, were al-
inzsst tooll7 tipstreyed; also communicating to the premises
behind 'rreviile-street, tgyordg Norlcy House. In the latter
. some low buildings connected with the baker's shop
were the fin,: fall P. Prey to the devouring element, No
account can be given a; f 9 the cause of the fire,—,Exeter Fly-
ing Post of Wednesday.
On Saturday evening, the -9th inst., Farmer John
Arney, of Congresbury, who for some years past has at times
had fits of insanity after eating a hearty supper, retired to the
waggon-house, and hung himself, He was oUt down shortly
after ; but life was extinct,

SECOND
114 D I 1 T

SUX OF CE, Scven o' Clock.
I PER I Al, PARLIAMENT,

(THIS EVENING.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAi.ER took the Chair at four o'clock.
TRINITY HARBOUR.

Sir A. L. HAY presented a petition from Edinburgh,
in favour of the Trinity Harbour Bill. The Hon: Btronet
moved the second reading of the Bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE opposed the second read-
ing, and would state why he conceived it ought not to pass.
He had not during the present Session opposed any of
the proeeedings with regard to this Bill. The promoters
of the Bill had no right whatever to make a harbour
within the bounds sought for by the present Bill. There
was a judgment of the Court of Session by which a Mr.
Alexander Scott had been prohibited for unloading goods,
or making a dock for their reception within those bounds.
Further, he had been prohibited from building, or
erecting a harbour or dock, or from doing any thing so as
to encroach on the rights vested in the Corporation of
Edinburgh. There was only one point on which an express
judgment had not yet been pronounced. The question the
House had to consider under these circumstances was,
would the House consent to pass a Bill empowering per-
sons to make an harbour within the limits of another
harbour? It was clearly an encroachment upon the rights
of property, and no case had been made out in the present
instance to entitle the promoters of the Bill to in-
terfere with the rights and privileges of the City of
Edinburgh, and the judgment of a Court of Law'.
He would put it to any Hon. Member of that House ac-
quainted with the rights of private property, whether they
would sanction such a proceeding. The measure had been
before the House of Lords, but from the omission of certain
clauses, it had been again brought back to that House ; but
from the decision which had been come to by a Court of
Law, it was clear the parties had no right whatever to make
such an harbour. There was no former instance of a Bill
being brought in after passing that House, and being
thrown out in the other. The other side cited
one instance in the case of Leith, where a Mr.
Dunlop petitioned against a Bill ; but if it was neces-
sary, he could prove that that case was not at all
within the parallel. The Dock Committee had op-
posed the Bill throughout, and they had a right to do
so yet ; but how could they do so now, at that late period
of the session, and after they had already spent a great
deal of money ? Under all these considerations, he hoped
the House would not sanction the unusual proceedings,
and moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six
Months.

Mr. WILKS had a Parliamentary experience of thirty
years, and had never before seen such an opposition
shewn to any Bill which had ever come before the
House, and he hoped, upon this occasion, the
House . would stand firm. The decision of the
Court of Session which had been alluded to did not at
all bear out the untenable claim of the Corporation of
Edinburgh : it merely went the length of saying that
Edinburgh was entitled to the Harbour Dues along the
shore, and not that Mr. Scott should not raise a harbour.
The Court of Session had determined that the Corpora-
tion of Edinburgh were entitled to Harbour Dues. Now
look at the case of the City of London ; that Corporation
had a paramount right to the navigation of the
River Thames, and had, therefore, a right to de-
mand dues ; but would it be tolerated that the
city of London had any claim to say they had not
only a right to claim Harbour Dues, but that they
would also prevent parties from erecting docks, or any
thing else, unless certain dues were paid. He was fully
convinced the House would not allow the opposition that
had taken place to be successful, but would sanction the
second reading of the Bill.

Mr. PRIN-GLE thought the opposition that had been
made to the Bill had been made upon the best of all grounds
—and that ground was supported by public opinion.
There was a general satisfaction expressed when this Bill
was thrown out. Various means had been tried to preju-
dice the minds of Hon. Members with regard to this Bill,
and he held in his hand a paper which had been circulated
for Oat purpose, to a few passag6-from which he entreated
the attention of the Hon. and Gallant Member for Elgin
(Sir A. L. Hay). He wished to ask the Hon. and Gal-
lant Member if he knew any thing of this pamphlet, or if
he understood what it meant?

Sir A. L. HAY said he was not answerable for it.

Mr. PRINGLE would read a few passages for the
Honourable and Gallant Member's information. The
paper had been circulated out of doors, in order to
prejudice people's minds.—(Hear, hear.) It complained
cf the unjustifiable opposition that was offered to this Bill,
both in that House and elsewhere ; of the statements that
had been made with regard to it, in which statements this
pamphlet said there was not the slightest alloy of truth—
that it (the opposition to this Bill) was grounded altogether
upon the most palpable fallacies, and that as no just grounds
could be stated in opposition to the Bill, the objections to it
were grounded upon vague generalities and dullness.
Now, he asked if it was fair to circulate such statements ?
The Hon. and Learned Attorney-General had stated in
that House that this Bill had been lost elsewhere by a
blunder, or something worse. Now, the objections to
this Bill were founded upon the forms of the House,
which had been altogether set at defiance by the promoters
of. this Bill. These were the grounds upon which this Bill
was rejected. He believed there had never beeen a ease
productive of more pertinacity than the promoters of this
Bill bad exhibited in endeavouring to pass it through
that House. The House would agree with him in thinking
it ought not to give its sanction to such a measure.—
(Cries of " Divide, divide.")
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were—

For the motion
Against it
Majority in favor of the second reading -45
On our return to the gallery we found
Sir A. L. HAY on his legs, protesting against the sys-
tem which had been pursued with reference to the present
Bill, the object of which had been to defeat the progress of
the Bill through the House of Lords. He should now
move that the Bill be committed that day, notwithstanding
the orders of the House.

Sir GEORGE CLERK protested against scuh a course
being pursued. There had been a good deal of irregularity
connected with this Bill, and he hoped it would not be fur-
ther persevered in. There were more than a hundred in-
stances in which the Standing Orders had been dispensed with,
but these were Bills to which no opposition was offered, but
there was no instance of such a course being taken when a
Bill was opposed as this one was. The Leith Police
Bill had been instanced, but it was not at all an
analogous case. It had passed that House after a very
strenuous opposition. In the House of Lords, by mutual
concession and compromise, a new Bill was introduced and
passed ; but it was not at all the same Bill, or anything
like it. The Hon. Member for Boston had said the case
was analagous to a wharfinger's building, a dock, or wharf
along the Thames ; but in all such cases the parties
built upon their own property, while there was no
allegation that this harbour was to be taken
out of the sea-beach, which was the undoubted
property of the Corporation of Edinburgh, which
extended so far as the turnpike-road. He hoped
the House would not afford such a pernicious precedent, as
to give a party a right by Act of Parliament to do that
which the Court of Session had precluded him from doing
by an injunction. Under these circumstances, therefore,
he trusted that the House would postpone the committal
of the Bill until the usual period of eight days, in order
that the parties aggrieved might come forward.
Sir A. L. HA moved that the Bill be committed that
day.

The LORD ADVOCATE deprecated the establish-
ment of a precedent so contrary to every. decision hitherto
made by the House.

Mr. WILKS was quite sure, as the suspension of the
Standing Orders had not been moved, the House would
make an order that the Committee should sit to-morrow.
Mr. PRINGLE said that this was_ the first case in
which such a precedent had been set, as that, in an opposed
private Bill which was brought before that House, the
promoters of it should move that the Standing Orders be
dispensed with, and that they should go forwards in such
an irregular manner in defiance of all the Standing Orders.
Sir A. L. HAY merely rose to put the House in pos-
session of what was the real petition to be heard by Coun-
sel. The Lord Provost of Edinburgh reported yesterday,
that at the request of a solicitor of London he had
signed a petition which had been sent to him against
th Trinity Harbour Bill, of which be hoped that
Counsel would approve. Consequently the Solicitor
in London was the person to be heard.
Sir G. CLERK said that the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber forgot to state that the magistrates of Edinbugh had
unanimously approved of what had been done by the Lord
Provost.

LONDON CEMETERY BILL.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY moved the third reading of
the London Cemetery Bill.
Mr. WILKS said every side of the House got up to say
that these Cemetery Bills were good, and requisite for the
health of the metropolis, yet not one Bill passed without
upholding the clergyman in exacting large fees for doing
nothing• He would not oppose the progress of the present
Bill, hut be gave notice that next Session he and other
ambers would oppose any Cemetary Bill wherein such
unjust clauses were introduced, or unless the whole of the
ground was consecrated, and no fees exacted.
Mr. POTTER wished to know whether he was not
right in supposing that the fees attached only to that part

of the ground which was consecrated, and not to the other
part, which was not ?
Mr. D. W. HARVEY waa well pleased that the Hon.
Member for Roston would call the attection of the House
to the subject at a future time. In the meantime he kit
rather surprised that the two Honourable Members
who spoke last, the able advocates of the Dissenters,
should advocate the consecration of the whole of the Ce-
metery grounds.—(" No, no," from Mr. Potter.) In reply
to. the question, he had to say that originally it was pro-.
posed that each body should pay two shillings to the
clergyman, but he opposed the plan. He said the sum
was too small, and that he would oppose the Bill unless it
was augmented. It was under those circumstances that
the sum had been increased to that which had been fixed
in other Bills of a similar nature.

After some observations from Mr. WILKS, Mr. HAR-
VEY, and Mr. A. TREVOR,

Mr. POTTER rolved that the third realing be de-
ferred till to-morrow.

Mr. HUME wished to know from the Hon. Member
for Southwark, whether Dissenters would be compelled by
this Bill to pay fees for interment i❑ consecrated ground ?
MMr. D. W. HARVEY could not give a direct
answer to the question of the Honourable Member ; but
from his general knowledge he should say that Dis-
senters would not be compelled to pay fees. -
Mr. BAINES thought that the Bill ought to stand
over till this point re3pecting fees was ascertained, so that
there should be no ambiguity about it.
Mr. HINDLEY thought the Dissenters in that House
would not be discharging' their duty, if they allowed this
Bill to pass in its present shape. -
Mr. HARVEY consented to postpone the third reading
till to-morrow, which was accordingly done.