The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-21 00:00:00

Lord SHAFTESBURV sat for the Lord Chancellor.

Their Lordships sat in a Committee of Privileges, wht n
the hearing of Counsel on the Lovat Peerage case Was
concluded. Judgment postponed.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 20.

The SPEAKER informed the House that the peti-
tioners against the Carlisle, Stamford, and County of Wex-
ford elections, bad not entered into the necessary recog.
nizances.
Mr. TYRELL presented a petition from the growers
of corn in the neighbourhood of Bungay (Norfolk),
against the use of mola.ses in distilleries.
Mr. W. WIIITMORE presented petitions from British,
native, and other inhabitants of Calcutta; from certain
inhabitants of Glasgow, of Hull, of the Dock Company
of Kingston-on-Hull; and from a place in Ayrshire,
against the monopoly of the East India Company.
Lord MANDEVILLE presented a petition from Porta-
down, against the grant to Maynooth College.
Mr. BLANIIRE presented a petition from Cockermouth
praying that it be removed from schedule B of the Reform
Bill.

Sir R. MUSGRAVE presented a petition from the
parish of the Holy Trinity, Waterford, against the grant
to the.Kildare-place Society.
Sir 31. W. RIDLEY presented a petition from the
Literary and Scientific Society of Newcastle, praying the
House not to restrain, but to promote, the general intelli-
gence of the people; and urging the repeal of taxes on
knowledge.

Mr. THROGNIORTON presented a petition from a
body of agriculturists, assemb!ed at Newbury, in favour
o f the Reform B:11.

Mr. TREVOR presented a petition from the freemen
of Newcastle-on. Tyne, praying that they might not be
deprived of their rights by the Reform Bill.

Mr. BROWNLOW preseotefl a petition for the repeal
of the Union from Belfast. Ile did not agree in the
prayer of the petition.

Sir R. BATESON said that the petition had been got
up surreptitionsly by agents from Dublin, and that in all
Belfast there were not one hundred respectable men in
favour of the repeal of the Union.
Mr. RUTIIVEN and Mr. Bv.owlvtow bore testimony to
the respectability of some of the names attached to the pe-
tition.

Air. HEATHCOTE presented a petition from Boston
against the importation of foreign corn.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from
the hackney-coach proprietors against allowing stages to
p'y in the metropolis.
Lord ALTHORP said, that it was his intention, when
he brought his measure forward on this subject, to make
it effectual.
Mr. R. GORDON presented a petition from Crick-
lade, complaining that the elections for that place were
held in the church.
MR. AND MRS. DEACLE.

Mr. EVANS pastponed his notice on the subjec►, for
documents, till this day.
Mr. BINGHAINI BARING complained of the manner

in which that Hon. Gentleman had brought forward his
notice. Ile had sent him no notice on the subject, and
having been out of town, it was by mere accident that he
found that it was to come on that night.—(heir, hear.)
He thought that before the Hon. Gentleman had given
such a notice, he should have fixed a day for it, so as to
afford an opportunity to those who were interested in it to
be present.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. EVANS had not in the least wished to take the
Hon. Gentleman by surprise. When he had given the
notice on the previous night, he had seen some
.of the
lion. Gentleman's re] ttions in the House, and was not
aware that he himself was out of town. He had studi-
ously avoided making a communication to any of the par-
ties concerned, and he had thought that his public duty
required such a course. If, however, it would be more
convenient to the lion. Gentleman, he had no objection to
change the day.
Mr. B. BARING—The sooner the better.
DELAY OF THE REFORM BILL.

Lord ALTHORP—I beg to give notice, that in conse-
quence of the length of time occupied by the debates in
the Committee on the Reform Bill, I shall move to morrow
that on such days as the Committee is appointed for, that
the order of the day do take precedence of all business
whatever, including petitions.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WYNN moved the Order of the Day for the third
reading of the Oaths before the Lord Steward's Bill.
Lord ALTHORP wished that his Right Hon. Friend
would postpone this Bill, and allow the Reform question
to be proceeded with.
Mr. WYNN observed, that only last Wednesday it had
been settled tl,at Wednesdays were to be open days, on
which Government Orders of tke Day were not to have
precedence.
Lord ALTIIORP admitted that such was the arrange-
ment, and therefore, if his Right Hon. Friend chose to
insist on precedency, it must be allowed ; but he (Lord
Althorp) thought that, though he was liter Ally bound to
that arrangement, he hardly was to the spirit of it, as the
Committee on the Reform Bill might be looked upon in
the light of an adjourned debate.
After a short discussion on the arrangement for public
business, during which
Mr. BRISCOE said that the Reform Bill ought to take
precedence of all other questions, because it was at present
an all-absorbing question.—(A groan.)
The Order of the Day for the third reading of the Oaths
before the Lord Steward's Bill was read ; and
Mr. WYNN moved that the Bill be then read a third
time.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS opposed the motion as break.
ing in on the Constitution.

Mr. C. W. WYNN supported the Bill.
Mr. G. BANKES would vote with his Hon. and
Learned Friend (the Member for Oxford), should he
divide the House, against the Bill. He would rather
have the second set of oaths, and those which were taken
in the House abolished, than the first set.

Sir C. FORBES would vote against the Bill, because
it would be but a short tirue in existence, for the next
Parliament would abolish oaths altogether.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
REFORM BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day,
for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the
Reform Rill.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Commit.
tee, Mr. Bernal in the Chair.

In the Committee the question Was put, th the natne
of the borough of Great Beduin stand part of the first
clause.

Mr. G. RANKES wished to guard himself, by allow-
ing the vot.! to pass, against its being supposed that by
doing so, he precluded himself from hereafter moving
that Great Bedwin should be combined with other bo-
roughs into a district fur returning a Member. The lion.
Member protested, in this point of view, to the better part
of the first clause, which said, that all the boroughs con-
tained in schedule A should have no part in the repre-
sentation ; and gave notice that he would hereafter sub-
mit a motion to incorporate Great Bedwin with some
other borough.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Hon. Member was at
liberty to make any motion hereafter lie might think pro-
per. Great Bedwin had, it was true, more that♦ 2,000
inhabitants at present, but the borough paid only 981.
taxes, while the parish paid upwards of 5001., and the
borough alone returned the Members. However, lie pro-
posed to put the borough into schedule A, because, in
1821, it had not 2,000 inhabitants.
Sir CHARLES WETHERELL contended that the
schedules were founded en principles more rotten than the
boroughs. Ile was satisfied to pass over Great Bedwin
then, like his Hon. Friend, the Member for Corfe Castle,
but he declared that Great Bedwin hid as good a right to
be placed in schedule Bas any borough there. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman entered at length into the argu-
ments on the subject of the census of 18:31, and said that
the friends of the Bill would take the state of Cheltenham