The Sun.
London, England, 1831-04-21 00:00:00

SUPPLY AND ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.

The House resolved itself, on the motion of Air. TENNY.•
SON, into a Committee of Supply and Ordnance Estimates.

Mr. HUME, who entered the House after the Com-
mittee had been formed, observed that for the first time in
his life he should not oppose the votes of certain sums being
now passed to his Majesty for the purposes sated in those
votes, in the hope th it it would enable his Majesty's Mi-
nisters very speedily to bring the affairs of that House
into a state in which his Majesty might be disposed
at once to dissAve the Parli.tment, in order that
Hon. Members might be sent back to their constituents,
for neck and neck—(Lotid laughter)—as the two
pieties in that House were after two trials, it would
be perfect folly to attempt to discuss anything
of any importance. It could not be very
_satisfactory to
suppose that that House wasexactly divided in opinion, and
that with one half the whole ma.s of the people should
be. In such a state of things it was impossible any good
could be done.

Colonel TRENCH observed, that the last Admini-
stration hail effected a reduction of 47,0001. per annum in
this department, whilst the present Administration had re-
trenched only to the extent of 4,0001. or 5,0001.
Mr. TENNYSON said that he hoped to be ahle to cf.-
feet a much greater reduction next year.

The remaining items were agreed to, and the Huse
resumed.
The report was ordered to be received to-narrow,
the Chairman obtained leave to sit again on Friday.

On the motion of Mr. C. W. WYNN, the Lord
Steward's Oaths Bill went through a Counnitte.,, the Bill
was ordered to 1 e engrossed, and read a thud time on
Friday.
The House then went into a Cutranittee on ie Admi-
nistration of Justice in Ireland Bill, on the moric of Mr.
CutaarTow.

Mr. RUTH EN animadverted on the abuses of She-
riffs in empanel:ing Juries, and showed, by a rtiteience to •
tie reports already laid on the table of the WU., that
parties were continually obliged to purchase an exemption
from serving as Jurors, referring more particularly to the
evidence of Mr. John Dadd, a Dublin auctioneer, which
proved that Sheriffs on some occasions received a compli-:
went of fifty and sixty pounds for certain indulgences 'tty
them extended to the donors in return. He would take
this opportunity of stating, that he had la: 1 received a
communication from a gentleman in 'retain , whose feel-
ings it appeared were wounded by the observations which
he had made upon this su!,ject already, and he much re-
gretted that any thing he had uttered should have been
prodactive of annoyance to any one ; but he could by no
means consent to retract a word of what had failen horn
him during the debate alluded to, for he had made no
strictures whatever which were not fully justified by the
information on which he acted, nor had he been, in any
degree, influenced by personal considerations.
Mr. CRAMPTON disclaimed being au apologist for
any one abuse, whether public or private, whether in the
sheriff's-office in Ireland, in the administration of the
lows, or in the rotten borough., of which he tiutsed so •
soon to witness the disfranchisement. •

Sir C. WETHERELL, with all due deference for the
learning and station of the lion. Gentleman who filled
the office of Solicitor-General for Ireland, deprecated in the
strongest terms his very ill-timed and unwarrantable allu-
sion to what he was pleased to call rotten boroughs.---•
(Laughter.) The alusion on this occasion was equally
uncoil, d for and out of place, and he must say, did but
little credit to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's pru-
dence and good sense.
Mr. LEADER observed, that the most odious abuses
were daily taking place in the sheriff's office in Ireland,
and he hoped, ere long, to witness their effectual and per-.
manent abolition.

Mr. JEPHSON directed attention to the inconvenient
operation of the Regist►y Act, and requested to kno►o
whether it was likely that any legislative measure would
be applied to remedy the evil.

Mr. RICE raid, that the reason why the abuses in the
register's office htd not hitherto been rectified, Vat, the.
variance of two minutes one with the other, which mad.'
it difficult to decide upon which it would be pieferable
proceed. A report on the subject had, howe‘4.r, lately,
been luid upon the table, which so far disemlrarrassed the
Government on point as to enable him to state that
an effective remedy would be brought forward with little
further loss of time.

The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be cow
mitted on Friday next.
On the motion of Mr. LITTLETON the Mo9ey Payment
Acts' Repeal Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. CHAYTOR presented a petition from certain !
electors in Durham, in favour of the Reform Bill. The
petitioners were at present in possession of a monopoly
of the franchises, but most honourably were willing to
surrender that monopoly in favour of t.l.!eir unrepresetit
fellow-citizens.

Mr. HUNT was sure that neither the petitioners nor
the Noble and Hon. proprietors of boroughs, who were
thus trun►petinß what they cou:d not help, Would have
surrendered to the people their monopoly of representation
but from fear of compulsion.
Mr. HUME denied the assertion of the Hon. Member
tor Preston, whose other mis-statements ►espeeting the
feelings of the mass of the population with reference to
the Reform Bill, he was enabled to state were wholly
founded. Petitions were in pro.:ress from the•dtstrict9
which the Hon. Member had represented as dissatisfied
with the Bill, contradicting in the must explicit terms the
Hon. Alember's statement.

Mr. HUNT would engage for ss. to obtain a double
number of signatures to that attached to any such petition
as the Hon. Member alluded. He never denied that the
people were anxious for the success of the Reform mea-
sure; but he maintained, and would maintain, that the
peopl, were deluded by it. He wished to know what good
this Bill would do for the people? Would they get bread
cheaper by it ? Would they get a reduction of taxes?
(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Sibtliorre.) Would they g t
reduction of.thst accursed pension list? No ;
had defended it through thick and thin, and had told the
(-louse that there was no prospect of amelioration for
people in the reduction of taxes.
Mr. HUME denied that he bad made any attack 41
he Hon. Member for I'reatou ; all that he had said
!)een in vindication of other persons.
Mr. SIBTHORPE agreed with the Hcn. Member Ira
Preston that this Bill was a delusion and a fraud on t"t
people of England, and he was convinced that the more,
was txpooed, the snore would the country be (14100'

w

%X

was that tln Corn.
their duty to state.
could be poi) fluty
-( Hear, bear.) They
nisequence of the un-
to by the other side,
rin petition.—( Hear,
the Noble Duke's
nduct in Ireland ; he ,
tedneSs with which he
ear of his salary ; .he
tenour of his life, as
the idea that he had
d with the Opinions

personally to attack
,mtnissiontrs. After
:rs the petition was

rat petitions against

letition from South
be disfranchised for

etition from Ips rich,
diwfranehised.

i from Stowbridge in

by his constituents to
s the general opinion
tion front a number
, iiithenting from the
declaration was
Lite(' they were not
sidered that if the
a law it would en-
He professed hi this

a petition from kirk-

3. MURRAY anti Sir
to be printed.

nted several petitiuns
arm.

talon fruenßishop'e-

al petitions in favour

)etition from Preston

petition from Pres-
tl also one from the
ty 6,000 individuals
the present plan of
;nation at what his
lid respecting their

mtitioos from various

ESTIMATES.

turn of Mr. TINNY-
Ordnance F:stimates.
inn after the Com-
; for the first tune in
3f certain sums being
poses sated in those
tie his Majesty's
Lire of that House

might be disposed
!nt, in order that
to their constituents,
:hter)—as the two
wo trials, it would
discuss anything
very satisfactory to
vided in opinion, and
,f the people should
impossible any good

t the last Admiui-
,ooo/. per annum in
!ministration had re-
or 5,0001.
Ned to be &hie to e!--

ar.
to, and the 11,1 se

ved to-marrow, a,:d
lin on Ft iday.
WYNN, the Lord
Committe4., the Bill
end a thud time on.

inittee on 1: Admi-
t the moti of Mr.
n the abuses of She- '
ed, by a rtirePence to •
•,t of the Was., that
rehase an exemption
e virtieularly to the
auctioneer, which
is received a compli-
•tain indulgences ry •
n. He would take
ad licely received a
Ireland, whose feel..
observations which
ly, and he much re-
ed should have been
but he could by no
chat bad fallen horn
or he had made no
Fully justified by the
had he been, in any
atioos.
ng au apologist for
ate, whether in the
tninistration of the
which he tiusTed so

ue deference for the
entleman who filled
3d, deprecated in the
unwarrantable allu-
rotten boroughs.--.
occasion was equally
must say, did but
Gentleman's pm-,

most odious abuses
I's office in Ireland,
it of and per-

to the inconvenient
requested to knoel
;ive measure would

ly the ahnses in the
II rectified, was the
other, which muds
iuld he preferable to
Lad, however, lately
disembarrassed the
10 him to s:nte that
forward n ith little

1 ordered to be coin•

he Money Payment
to and paafseil.
titian from certain
Reform Bill. The
ssion of a monopoly
bly were willing to
t.).!eir unrepresent 4

r the petitioners nor
woughs, who were
of help, would have
dy of representatioo

the Hon. Member
seas 4 especting the
n with reference to
rte were wholly un-
s from the•dlstricte
sensed as dissatisfied
it explicit terms the

. to obtain a double
to any such petition
ver denied that the
of the Reform mea-
I maintain, thut the
to know what good,
rould they get bread
reduction of taxes ?
) Would they g t
t? No ;
in, and had told th
untlioration for 11)- _

Lde any attack uel
hat he had slid I'4

Y

Hen. Member forth
nd a fraud on it
ed diet the morete4
ountry be dise

With it. He could not give that en& which some pe p!e
were inclined to give, to those Nob!emen and Gentlemen
who had come forward now at the eleventh hour to sur-
n nder their borough irifluanee. To deserve credit, the
surrender of it should have been both vulunta, y and early.
Bis dal, qui dat cito.
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES denied that this Bill was
either a fraud or a delomon on the people of England.—
He had wished to ascertain the feelings of his constituents
on it, and he had in consequence spent three days out of
the lot ten in calling upon his constituents in Oxford.—
He had c. fled in that time upon more than a thousand of
them personally, and he would undertake to say that no*
50 individuals out of that number disapproved of the
inciple, or even of the details of the measure.—(Hear.)
He had seen some of their children playing about, in
whom the right of voting was only inchowe.—(Hear,
from Sir C. Wetherell.)—The circumstance of their chil-
dren being deprived of that franchise which they them-
selves enjoyed, was the only objection which any of his
constituents had urged to the measure—(Hear, hear,)
—but they had unanimously agreed to wave that objec-
tion rather than endanger the success of a Bill which was
calculated to confer so much benefit upon the country._
(Loud cries of Hear, from the Alinisterial benches,)—
Now the rights of the children of freemen were secured by
one of the late amendments ititn,ductd into the Bill, and
therefore he was certain that his constituents would not
have the slightest objection to the Bill as it now stood.

Sir C.WETHERELL asserted, that from his long con-
nexion with the University and city of Oxford, he had as
extensive a knowledge of the feelings of the inhabitants of
Oxford as the Hon. Member who now represented them
and he would take upon himself to deny the assertion that
the constituency of the city of Oxford, whose representa-
tive he had been, and to whom lie still was strondy at-
tached, were favourelde to this measure of Reform. As a
proof of his opinion, he would only state that iu the Com-
mon Council of that town, which consisted of sixty . per-
sons, a petition in favour of Reform had only been carried
by the citing vote of the Mayor. He contended that nine
out of ten persons in Oxford had neither lead nor under-
stood the details of the Bill.—(Hear.)
Mr. TENNYSON was sure that the citizens of Oxford
understood that this Bill would destroy fifty-five rotten bo-
rouglie—(Hear)—that after it was passed Boroughbridge
would cease to exist—( Hear, and a laugh)—and that when
it ceased to exist, his Hon. and Learned Friend opposite
would be compelled to go back to the electors of Oxford or
of some other populous borough.—(Hear.) Me must say
that he should like to s e how his Hon.and Learned Friend
would be received by his quondam constituents of Oxford,
when he went back to them after his present declaration,
that they neither knew nor understood any thing about the
present Bill.
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES wished to say a few words
in explanation. He contended that he was justified in
declining that there was almost an unanimity of opinion
in favour of this Bill among his constituents at Oxford.
2,14.5 of his constituents had signed a petition in favour
Of 'Reform, which had been agreed to at a public meeting
at Oxford, at which more than 1,000 persons were pie-
!tent, and at which there had been only one dissentient
present. At a subsequent pedal, the Chamber of the
Corporation had met, and had wished to get up an anti-
reform petition. The promoters of that petition had been
defeated, however, by a majority of one. There were
thirty persons for that anti-reform petition, and thirty one
against it. Those thirty persons framed pert of the fifty
dissentients to whom he had alluded in his former speech.
As the Hen. and Learned Member for Byronghbridge
steemed inclined to disbelieve the statement which be had
given of the feelings of his censtitueute on this Bill, he
only wished that the Hon. and Learned Member would
meet hint on the hustings at Oxford, to ree whether his
constituents would not verify it.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
Sir C. WETHERELL repeated the assertion which
he had made on a former occasion, that the petition which
the. Hon. Member for Oxford had presented had come
from persons who did not understand tie Reform Bill.
The petition was ordered to he printed.
Sir C. WETHERELL presented a petition from Glou-
cester against the Reform Bill.
Colonel WEBB (we believe) observed, that as he had
the honour of being one of the Members for tl,e city of
Gloucester, he must be permitted to say a few words upon
this petition. During the last fortnight he had visited
hie constituents, and he could say of his own knowledge,
that a great majority of them were in favour of this Bill.
Sr C. WETHERELL presented a petition against the
Bill trom the Common Council of Norwich.
Mr. HUNT said that he 'had never asserted tint•no
credit should he given to the noblemen and gentry who
had surrendered their borough patronage. All that he
bad said wits, that he should have given thym greater credit
had they surrendered it before this Bill wits introduced,
which would Compel them to part with it. He should
give them still more credit, if they would give up the bo-
rough influence which they still retained, as, for irmauce,
the boroughs- of Caine and Molten.—(Hear, from Sir C.
Wetherell anti Colonel S hthorpe.)
Mr. S. RICE said, that if the noble personages to
whom the Hon. Member for Preston alluded had given
up their boroughs betitre the present time, they would have
defeated the object which they lied in view equally with
the people of England. They acted no less wisely than
patriotically, in giving up their borough infleence as part
of a general measure ; beat till that general measure was
carried, they ought to bold it and to use it as trustees •for
the public, and for the public benefit.—(Hear.)
After a few words from Sir C. FORBES, the petitions
were ordered to be printed, as was a similar petition pre-
sented by Sir C. WETHERELL from Borouglibrldge, pray-
ing that the Reform Bill might not pass into a law, and
that they might be heard against it by counsel.
Mr. WYSE presCnted a petition from the inhabitants of
Cradle!, in fevour of the Reform Bid. The Reform Bill
was most popular in Ireland. He trusted that his Ma-,
jesty's Ministers would, by dissolving the Parliament; ap-
peal to the people, and he would answer far it that the
result t.f that appeal to the people ol Irelend would be fa-
vourable to the measures of Reform which had been
brought leeward by Gevernment.
Mr. SHEIL supported the prayer of the petition. Not
having had an opportunity of addressing the House last
night, he wish. d to take that occasion to state, that if the
Reform Bill passed, it would be most sitiefictory to the
people of Ireland, and that one effect of it would be to
allay the feeling which existed there at present in favour of
a repeal of the Union. He concurred with those who
thought that Ireland was fairly entitled to an additional
number of reprueentativee. The two countries now formed
an united kingdom, and Ireland should be treate,! like
Yorkshire or any other component part of this country
Mr. M. FITZGERALD justified the vote which he gave
last night for the amendment moved by the Gallant
Member for Liverpool, on the ground that lie was anxious
to retain as many Members as they hid at present for Eng-
land. At the same time he would be as anxious as any
titan to give such additional Members to Ireland as she
was entitled to.

Mr. S. RlCE.said, that the effect of the vote which
had been given by his Right lion. Friend last night for
the instruction, must be to prevent Ireland from getting
additional re!.resentatives.
Mr. O'BRIEN said, in reference to the vote which he
hal given against the amendment, that if he had been
the bitterest opponent of Ministers, he would yet, as an
Irishman, have opposed that resolution, the effect of which
would be to prevent Ireland from getting those additional
Members which Ministers had proposed to give to that
country.
Mr. WYSE presented a similar petition from the palish
of Aughagower, in the county of Mayo.
Mr. SCHONSWAR presented a petition from the
Mayor, Aldermen, Burgesses, and Freemen of Hull, against
the clause in the Reform Bill for disfranchising freemen.
The same HON. MEMBER, presented a petition from the
owners of steam-vessels in the Humber, against the pro-
posed tax on stelm-vessels.
Mr. BAINBRIDGE presented a petition from the in.
habitants of the parish of St. Janie.,'s, in Bath, praying
fur an extension of the elective franchise to them.
Lortl STRATHAVEN presented a petition in favour of
the Reform Bill from the county of liuntingdon. His
Lordship stated that the petition had I.een adopted at a
most numerous and respectable me-ting of the county.
Mr. O'BRIEN presented a petition from Larne, in the
county of Antrim, in favour the introduction of a wet-
regulanal system of poor-laws into Ireland ; and also a pe-
tition from the parish of Lough Dergh, for some pro-
vision for illegitimate children,
Mr. JEPHSON presented a petition from the parish

Whitechurch, in the county of Cork, in favour of the Re-
fortn Bill.
Mr. LABOUCHERE presented a petition from Aberyst
with, in favour of Reform.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition, numerously
signed by the workmen of Westbromwich and the neigh-
bouring parishes, in the county of Stafford, in favour of
the Reform Bill. As the petition was very short, he
begged that it might be read by the Clerk of the House.
The petition being read,
Mr. HUNT, in refutation of the petition,.declared that
be had nevLr said that the working classes of Staffordshire
were avers, to Reform : all he had said was, that those
whom he bad addressed disapproved of the Bill brought
in by Ministers.
Mr. LITTLETON said, that the petition adverted to
the report of what the Hon. Member for Preston bad said

in that Irise, and the petitioners unanimously denied
that they disapproved of the Bill.
The SPEAKER said, that if the Hon. Member stated
that the petition adverted to any V,inz that had taken
place in that House, it could not. be Eta, ived, and it must
he withdrawn.
Mr. LITTLETON had not meant to stdte a Let, he
hail only uttered his individual opinion.
Sir C. WETHERELL thouebt that the retiiion had
been got up to craitradiet a statement which hdd b en
made in that House by one of its Members, and it there-
'Ow ought to he rcj 'cted.
Mr. S. RICE thought that there tv.s nothing in the
petition to warrant a conclusion that it referred to what
lad been slid in Parliament, for the matter to which the
p. tition alluded had appeared in various publications, as
s'atements made out of doors.
The SPEAKER observed, that his ottjection was
founded upon what had been stated by the, Hon. Member
who had presented the petition, anti not upon the contents
of the p-tition
Mr. HUNT deeared that the 'petition Lad been got up
in London, and the Hon. Member who had presented it
had only insinuated that it alluded to him, fitr the Hon.
Member would not . charge him with having uteri(' a
falsehood in respect to the seotimenis of the working
classes, for learnt- the personal consequences.
The SPEAKER called the Member for Preston to
order. He begged to remind the House that the Ittn.
Member for Staffordshire had not construed the petition
to allude to the Hon. Member for Preston, it was the
latter gentleman that had applied the contents of the peti-
tion to himself.
Mr. HUNT said that the Hon. Member for Staff,rd-
shite had come to him and had told him that he had re-
ceived tl.e petition, and that it con'radicted what he (Mr.
Hunt) had asserted respecting the hostility of the working
classes to the Reform BM. He treated the petition as
altogether fraudulent.
Mr. LITTLETON said, that there never was a more
ground'ess statement, and the Hon. Member for Preston
well kneW that there was not the shadow of a foundttion
fur his a•ta rtion that this petition was fraudulent. The
petition was written in the country, and he had received
front every part of the country assurances of the indignas•
tion with which the...people had heard of the Hon. Member
for Preston's assertion that they were hosile to the Reform
Bill.

After a few words from Sir C. WF.THERELL and Sir C.
Fon uns,the petition was received, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. MAXWELL presented three petitions aga'nst Re-
form, from Mount Leinster, in Carlow, and from the pa-
rishes of St. Mary and Kihush, in the county of Wexford.
Mr. HUNT presented a petition in favour of Reform,
from Brasted. in Kent.

Mr. HUME presented seventeen petitions from different
places in England and Scotland, in favour of Reform.
Among the petitions the Hon. Member said there was °tie
from Shaftesbury, awl the petitioners set forth, that al-
though they were to be deprived of one of their Memb=rs,
they nevet theless were favourable to the Refor:n Bill, being
convinced that it would prove of the utmost benefit to the
community ,tt large.
At Half-past Tim the House adjourned.