The Sun.
London, England, 1831-10-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, OCTOBER 13.
A petition was presented from the Mayor
_rdannadCoorpfoTrratadionn
in
Dublin, praying for the establishment of a .13
Dublin.
Mr. BEasst,.and others from the Commons, brought up the
Employment of the Poor Bill, and the Bill for authorising the
Importation of Lumber and Provisionsfrom
America into3ar.
badoes.
On the motions of the Duke of RICHMOND and Lord AtfcX.
I,kNO respectively, the Bills were read a first time, and ordered
for a second reading to-morrow, with an intimation that a ma
tion would be made to suspend the. Standing Orders, that theßills
might be passed ox that day.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition in favour Of
the Reform Bill.
IRISH YEOMANRY,
Lord KING presented a petition from the Minty of Carlow,
praying that the yeomanry of the county should be disbanded,
and another force substituted to preserve the peace. The peti-
tioners stated that the yeomanry of the county of tallow were
men of the lowest ranks, and the employing Stich men to pre-
serve the peace was itself a cause of meth Violence and disturb-
ance, and therefore on that account they Were anxious that their
Lordships should adopt some Measure to dispense with tile
yeomanry force. It might perhaps be difficult to dispense fah
them at present, but he agreed with the petitioners thi,Ll another
orce would answer the purpose better. Durint ttie Administra-
tion of Lord Cornwallis, the yeomanry Were kept in the back
ground, and it was improper to tropic)), them at all, except in
times of great difficulty and danger: They could not be em-
ployed in ordinary times, Vvialtiut Perpetuating the evils of ant.
mostly and dissension, which Were too prevalent in Ireland. lie
took this occasion to present the petition, as he saw several Noble
Lords connected with Ireland on the opposite betath.
Earl RODEN thanked the Noble Lord Int pieSentit etlie
tition when they were in attendance, and •eetild 'We ;tit answer
as to the charges against the yeoWianry. .The Noble Lord was
keita.lly mistaken, when he ftritedttliat the frith yeomanry were
linen of the lowest rank, They werre, a tickly of substantial men,
'and remarkably welladapted
,fcir: effectually putting down dis-
turbances, and ibey nten attached to the best interests of
Ireland. Ax to their beint men of the lowest order, he could
answer that by a.direet `Aegative. He was himself a Catirai'e
ogee, of
these corpstamt could answer for their eenerak pexkeouduct.
Lord KING ~-He himself knew little of trelaedl 'and had only
said that "the petitioners stated that the Vaiiiatiry of the county
of Carlow were of the lowest closet' on. He did not dispute
their devotion to their county}'., lint he was of opinion that they
ought to be employed only in Miles of difficulty and danger, and
et resent they might well be dispensed with.
Lord LORTON tonfirmed what had been stated by his Nobly
Friend (Earl as to the efficiency and utility of tht Irish
yeomanry.
TIM Matqi`uis of WESTMEATH—He was himself ad bilker
pi* :yettlKalry, and could speak to their genctal geed conduct
10.1 e 'unhappy occurrences had lately talten plate, to which the
'fietntion of Government had been `direeted ; lifinisters had done
°everything to repress and restrain AIM occurrences.
Lord KING then presented petitions from the parishes of St..
Giles in the nelds, and St. iscurge's, Bloomsbury, in favour of
the Vestry Adt.
LI:ADM-HP then presented a petition in favour of Re-
forsn from a place in Leicestershire; also, a petition from the
Rowan Catholics of a parish in Galway, injavour of the Galway
Franchise Bill.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE present&l a petition to the
same effect, from a place in the county of Galway.
GALWAY FR 4,NTHISE BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the order of the day
for eoing into CommittOe On the Galway Franchise Bill.
The Bill was comraittca accordingly.
The Duke of WELLINGTON opposed the Bill, as being con-
trary to the pelity Which ought to be adopted with regard to Ire-
land, since tIW passing of the Catholic Relief Bill. The propel
policy waitid have been to repeal the Act of the 4th of George I;
IsVatie this corporation exclusively Protestant, and to leave
hs they were under their charter. But instead of doing
ItfrAts the i,resent Bill introduced a large body of Catholics into
tbe q:,rporation. He therefore moved an amendment to the effect
O.: tendering the Bill to repeal the Galway Statute of thp
4th Viorge I.
'The Marquis of CLANRICARDE opposed the amendment.
The conduct of the Noble Duke was very extraordinary, for if he
intended to substitute another Bill for the present, he ought to
have objected to the second reading. There was a very impor-
tant reason for not repealing that Bill, for it enabled the Lori'
Lieutenant to appoint additional Magistrates, besides those of
the corporate hndy, to which before the Magistracy had been eri-
tirely confined. This power had been most beneficially exercised
on several occasions. He objected to the amendment also, as bei-
ing destructive of the rights of Protestant freemen.
Lord ELLENBOROUGI-I—He had no objection to the
principle of the Bill, and had, therefore, voted for the second
reading. The principle was to equslize the franchise, as between
Protestant and Catholic, and of that he approved, as the proper
policy to be now pursued. What he objected to was the mode in
which this was done, and he thought it would be much better
done by the repeal of the Act of the 4th Geo. I. as proposed by
his Noble Friend. As to the depriving the Protestant freemen
of their vested rights, the Noble Marquis had lately voted for
a Bill which went to deprive of their vested rights the freemen
of fitly-six boroughs. If the Ministers intended to support the
Bill, he must say that it was one of the most scandalous jobs that
ever existed. _ _

The Marquis of CLANructiEDE and the Duke of WELLINGTON
explained.
Lord PLUNKETT objected to the amendment, that it would
tvl-feal the whole of the. Act of the 4th George L
i'he Duke of WELLINGTON explained, that by the '7th of
George IV. the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland could call on the
Land-Chancellor to appoint four Magistrates for Galway, whiOt
would obviate any inconvenience to the town of Galway from the
repeal of this Act.
After some further conversation the clause was agreed tO,
without any division.
The House resumed, and the report was ordered tote brought
up to.morrow.

REFORM..
Tho LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from Invei-
ness in favour of the Reform Bill.

Lord HOLLAND presented a similar petition from Deptford
in Kent. The petition was signed by 1,300 persons in a very short
time.

The Earl of HARROWBY did not rise to give any opposition
to the two petitions in favour of the Bill. He was rather glad to
see them, as they proved that the people who signed these peti-
tions, did not consider that the late decision of their Lordships
shut the door against alt Reform. Ihe arguments he had
thought it his duty to use, and the opinions he had expressed on
the Bill, were not to be interrupted as if he entertained smti-
tnents contrary to every change in the House of Commons. The
rejection of the Bill seemed to him, as had been already stated by
the Noble Earl, to be the fair result the decision of that House,
combined with the faults of the Bill, as had been 'explained by
Ilia Noble Friend. If the result of the latediscussion should make
it appear probable that the opinion of the House of Lords was
tipposed to all Reform, if Reform were not confined to that Bill,
he Oar one was not included in such an opinion. Standing, as he
slid, perhaps more completely unconnected with other individuals
than could well be expected of a man deeply engaged as he had
been in public business, he was at liberty to express his opinion
without committingany individual of their Lordships' House, or
implicating any other person, in the sentiments he had already
stated. He should always feel averse from an y change in the Consti-
tution unless that change was desired by the greater part of the
wealth's, and respectable portion of the community ; so that the
,:i'overnment, by not granting it, would lose part of its strength
tsral efficiency to provide for the happiness and prosperity of the
reverned. If it lost the confidence of the people, a changemight
be necessary ; but except under such circumstances a change
was to be avoided. Believing that such circumstances now
existed in this country, he for one had oppoied the late proposed
change, because that went much further than he could sanction.
He took the liberty of stating that, but not with am view of
extinguishingall Reform ; and he should be ready to listen to
any proposition which went to provide for the different interests
of the community. He thought It was desirable, for the good of
the country, that the representation should be extended. He
would not either be niggardly in extending it. He would not
object to extend it, by giving more Members to -prosperous
counties and towns, and he should not object to extend the con-
stituency of counties. He should be ready also to meet that ex-
tension to cut off other Members to make room for the new ones;
he would cut off what he conceived to be decayed boroughs,
both as to population and wealth. He objected, indeed, to adopt-
ing all general principles, but he would diminish or curtail the
Members of such places as were least considerable for wealth
and population. He would not fix any precise limit, either of
population or wealth, but having settleda limit to the increase he
would let that be the limit to the decrease. He should object to
disfranchising in the first instance. He would not propose any
particular right of voting as he had explained in his speech. He
approved of the limitations adopted as to counties, so as to dimi-
nish the expellee of jobbing. He should object to taking popu-
lation alone as the basis of representation, or the test of disfran-
chisement. .He objected to the Bill that it disfranchised, with-
out any corruption having been proved, one hundred and fifty
boroughs, and deprived them of their rights. lie objected also
to the uniform right of voting, and he objected to the test of
qualification which had been chosen for voters as much too low,
and as conferring the right on parties who would be exposed to
bribery. In stating these objections, he had thought it his duty
to explain the part he had taken ; it was a matter of little im-
portance, perhaps, to their Lordships, but it was of some im-
portance to him to save himself from misrepresentation.
The Earl of' HADDINGTON concurred in 'every thing the
Noble Earl had stated ; and whenever any measure was brought
before their Lordships on the principles stated by his Noble
Friend, he should be ready to give it his best consideration. •
Lord HOLLAND, in justice to the petitioners whose petition
he had presented, was bound to state, that they prayed not for
Reform in general, but for the particular Bill, the consideration
of which their Lordships had postponed. He had great. pleasure
in stating, that he agreed with the conclusion of the Noble Earl,
that the discussion on this measure was not concluded, but only
postponed. He hoped that a measure not less efficient would
become the law of the land. If the petition proved any thing, it
proved that the petitioners wereanxious to have that Bill which
their Lordships had postponed; and which, according to the
regular course or proceedings, they would hereafter revise.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed his satisfaction at
hearing the opinions of the Noble Earl. The Noble Earl would
extend the representation to great towns, and in populous coun-
ties : and lie would cut off rotten boroughs, to make room for
representatives for Manchester and Birmingham. He would not,
however, enter into the subject of the Bill which had been post-
poned • he would only say, that the petition he presented being
fromlnverness, where the proceedings of their Lordships on
Saturday could not be known time enough for the people there
to send up this petition, it proved nothing but the desire of the
petitioners for Reform.
Pe'itioiis laid upon the table.
The Irish Embankments' Bill was read a third time.
The Irish Anns Bill went through a Committee, as did the
Consolidated Fund Bill.