The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-20 00:00:00

the 2d of June. We do not expect that either it or
the Canada Union Bill will pass this Session.
The Earl of ABERDEEN, in presenting a pe-
tition in favour of his Church Bill, alluded to the
rhodomontade of a Mr. CUNNINGHAM, who had
described it as pulling the Redeemer from his
throne. Will the ATTORNEY-GENERAL prose-
cute such nonsense as a blasphemous libel ?
A little conversation took place on an Arms
Bill for Ireland, which serves only to show how
greedily Tory Peers, like Lord CHA RLEVILLE,
listen to idle tales, calumniate a people, and de •
nounce useful public servants ; and how terribly
these Lords are already alarmed at the consequences
of Lord STANLEY'S handy Legislation.
The Church-rate question was adverted to by
the Bishop of NORWICH, on presenting a petition
against Church-rates from Norwich. The Right
Reverend Prelate stated that lie thought the Dis-
senters ought not to be taxed to pay for the luxuries
of Churchmen's worship, but they ought to pay
to sustain the edifices. The Bishop of EXETER
concurred with his Reverend Brother, the late de-
cision of the Court of Queen's Bench having in-
spired even this Prelate with sentiments less arro-
gant than formerly.
The Archbishop of DUBLIN presented a peti-
tion against transportation, and submitted a motion
to their Lordships, that the punishment of trans-
portation should be immediately, completely, and
finally abolished. The Right Rev. Prelate en-
forced his well-known and enlightened views with
much solid and terse argument.
The Marquis of NORMA NBY opposed the mo-
tion chiefly on the ground, that if transportation
were abolished it would be difficult or impossible to
tell what to do with the criminals. In fact, criminal
jurisprudence finds itself at a dead halt ; it is
ashamed of the cruelties it commits, and
of its inability to prevent crimes, all its schemes
have failed, and there is a hopeless prospect for
society if it cannot find something better than the
present mode of punishment to deter men from vil-
lainy. However, great improvements have been
made in other departments of human knowledge,
and why not in criminal jurisprudence ? The
Noble Marquis not knowing what else to do with
the motion moved the previous question.
The Bishop of EXETER, while he applauded the
motion, recommended an application of funds to
provide religious instruction in the tenets of that
apostolical church of which he is so enlightened an
ornament as a panacea. A short but interesting,
debate ensued, which is well worthy of serious at-
tention, and which ended in the previous question
being agreed to without a division.
Their Lordships then adjourned.
The New Zealand Company Bill was read a
second time in the Commons.
The Weever Churches Bill was also read
a second time, after a strong opposition, and
a division, when 242 voted for it, and
MS against it. The Bill goes to appro-
priate the surplus funds of the River Weaver
Trust to building a church or churches. The
advocates of the Church have a great horror of
appropriating property destined for one purpose to
another, but their horror ceases when the appro-
priation is to the Churcle---•that is, to themselves.
Well-principled men I
The Portsmouth Floating Bridge Bill was read
a third time.
After the Report on the Committee of Ways
and Means had been brought up, the adjourned de-
bate on Lord STANLEY'S Bill was resumed by Mr.
DILLON BROWNE. A dull debate ensued, which
was not much relieved by the prepared impromptu
platitudes of Sir G. SINCLA IR, nor by the usual
escapades of the renowned Col. CONOLLY.
Mr. DILLON BROWNE properly reminded the
House of the great number of the Catholics,
and of the danger which might result from oppress-
ing them.
Mr. J. YOUNG testified to the fact that political
partizans wholly disregard morality, and on that
ground voted with his party.
Mr. VILLIERS STUART said the Bill would
destroy the representation of the people, which re-
commends it to Lord STANLEY and his friends.
Mr. WM. ROCHE spoke the opinions of his
constituents when he opposed the Bill, and asked
for the Ballot.
Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR was great in an attack
on Mr. O'CONNELL, against whom most of the
speeches of the STANLEY faction, like the Bill,
are directed.
Lord CHARLES RUSSELL meant well in oppos.
ing the Bill, but did not make an effective speech.
Mr. H. GRATTAN proved that Sir G. SIN-
CLAIR was rot shot proof, and had once been a
Whig and a patriot. Mr. GRATTAN also dealt
some hard blows at some other renegades.
Lord POIVERSCOURT declared that the Bill was
popular with landlords in Ireland, that fraud pre-
vailed at the elections, and that the Bill would as-
similate the law in the two countries.
Mr. C. WooD explained why he, not now being
Secretary of the Admiralty, meant to vote with
Lord STANLEY, and the to-office-progressing
Tories. We regret the falling away of a gentleman
to whom we had given the credit of being staunch
and true.
Air. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL made a very
creditable speech against the Bill. He happily
ridiculed Sir G. SINCLAIR, and demonstrated by
the Report of the Fictitious Votes Committee, that
the Tory landlords give leases containing a clause
subject to be revoked at six months' notice in order
to make their tenants vote as they please, and
furnish them with a pretext for voting against
their consciences. The landlords who thus
suborn perjury by wholesale, are to have more
power under Lord STANLEY'S Bill.
Colonel CONOLLY avowed that the landlords
wanted the Bill to make the tenants completely
subservient to them.
Mr. Proem', the Solicitor-General for Ireland,
showed that, under the name of an annual revision,
the Bill provided for an annual re-investigation of
every man's right to vote, however often proved, and
subjected that right to be investigated on appeal by
four tribunals, a mass of vexations quite enough to
sting the Irish into madness. Scorpions produce
such pestiferous effects.
Lord Howlcx, in order to preserve the consist-
ency of the House of Commons, sacrified his
own. He voted against the second reading of
the Bill, and now votes for comideting it.
If every other Member had followed the
Noble Lord's example, and had " turned his back
on himself," the decision to read the Bill a second
time would be undone. It only wanted, therefore,
a considerable number of Metnl;ers equally ready to I
turn round with Lord Ho WICK to carry Sir Wm.
SOMERVILLE'S amendment. We cannot forget
the Noble Lord's spirited denunciation of
the Irish Church, of which" he last night
reminded the House ; we are willing, there-
fore, to believe that lie continues to be a
friend to Ireland, but lie took a strange way to
show his attachment, by voting for a Bill which is
intended to drive her crazy. The Noble Lord
thinks, however, that the majority which he is vot
ing to make arrogant and powerful will consent to
mutilate their Bill in Committee, and in that hope
he sacrifices his reputation.
Sir la. 'WILDE, the Solicitor-General, opposed
the Bill, because it went to throw obstacles in the
way of obtaining the franchise, and would impair
the Reform Bill. If it went into Committee, every
clause would cause a battle on principle, and it
would waste the public time. On his resuming
his seat,

Mr. HUME mved that the debate be adjourned
till this day.
Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the motion, and the
House divided on it-127 voted for it, and 431
against it.

Mr. HUME appears then to have moved the
adjournment of the House, which gave rise to an
attack on Lord JOHN RUSSELL, by Lord IN-

GESTRIE, and a defence which made the latter

apologise.
to 91.

The adjournment was lost by 375

Again Mr. HUME moved the adjournment of
the debate, which, after a deprecatory speech of
Lord STANLEY, in which the Noble Lord com-
plained sadly of public business being interrupted,
was agreed to, and the debate and the House were
both adjourned a little before Three o'Clock.
Lord

STANLEY in 1g~ 33 proposed as the price
of the emancipation of the negroes, to lend the
planters 15,000,000/., but on their representation
he converted that loan into a gift of 20,000,0001.
On that occasion he yielded like putty to the slight
pressure of the opulent West Indians. He is not,
therefore,
always i:nplacable, always imperiously
self-willed, always truculent; he only exhibits these
amiable qualities when the Catholic slaves of Ire-