The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Mencll 8.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in the abseoca of the
Lord Chancellor, t,)ok his scat upon the Woolsack,
shortly after Five o'Clock.
The Marquis of DO WNSHIRE presented petitions
against Church Patronage in Scotland, from Omagh
and Liffcrd, in the county of Donegal ; from Skarban,
Portanferry, and some other place in the county of Down ;
and from the Presbytery of Coleraine. He presented
these petitions on account of the high respectability of
the 'petitioners, but distinctly begged to be understood
as guarding himself against the supposition that he was
to be considered as bound to advocate the views of the

petitioners when the subjectshOUldl;:b;:ughiregulaii;
before the House.

Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from
Twister in Northamptonshire, complaining that the
expenses attending vaccination were paid out of
the Poor-rates, and suggesting that as vaccina-
tion was a national object, the expenses attending it
should be defrayed at the national cost.
EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY.
The Earl of ABERDEEN gave notice that to-mor-
row he should put a question to the Nobla Viscount re-

specting the circumstances attendant upon the creation
of a new Professorship in the University of Ediuburgl-.
The Marquis ofNORMANBY—Ask now.

The Earl of ABERDEEN would rather have an

answer from the Noble Viscount ; he would, therefore,

wait until to-morrow.

AMERICA.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL wished to draw
their Lordships' attention to the intelligence which had

arrived from America that day, and which was of the
utmost impoitance to this country ; it had created a

great sensation in the City, and had produced an effect
on the funds. He referred to the document which had

appeared in the public papers purporting to be a
Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs presented
to the Congress of the United States on the 13th of
last month. It war chiefly respecting the detention of
Mr. M.Leod, but it also related to other matters in

disr,ute between this country a::d the United States.
lie did not intend to enter into the consideration of

that document, it would be ill-judged in him to do so ;
but he wished to know whither the document could

be considered as genuine. Such a document might
be got up for the purposes of stock-jobbing, and his
reason for doubting its genuineness was, that he hal
too high an opinion of the understanding and capacity
of the inhabitants of the United States. He belie ‘el

that they were not so blind to their own interests as to put
forth a document of the kind ; more particularly did he
doubt its authenticity, when it did not appear, from
the reports, that all Member of Congress had
ever rise❑ to move an amendment to it.—( Hear,
hear.) Surely if that document were genuine,
the people of the United States must have forgotten
the deranged state of their finances—they must have
forgotten that in their States there were three millions

of negroes ready to take part with England in the event
of a quarrel—they must have forgotten the great body
of Indians whom they had driven into the interior, and
who were ready to advance at once into their terri-

tories to revenge the wrongs they had suffered.
They must have forgotten the Canadians who were

among the most loyal subjects of her Majesty. Suppose
they were to wreak their vengeance on the unfortunate
victim who was now in their hands, did they suppose
that the Canadians would not be ready to avenge his
death in a thousand different ways ? did they suppose
that they would not seize some person living in the
United States Government ? Did they forget the body
of regular troops, he was happy to say a la-ge one, at
present stationed in our North American colonies, and
the large naval force which could at once be brought to
bear against them. He thought that after calculating
all these things they would find that they were more
likely to incur a loss than a profit by entering
into hostilities with this country, and therefore
he could not believe the document to be genuine.
For these reasons he hoped this document could net
be a true one, but it had produced so strong an im-
pression on the public mind that he thought it right to
inquire of the Noble Viscount (Lord Maiourne) whether
her Majesty's Government had received any official
information respecting this Repal t, and whether they
considered it to be an official document or no'. If the
Government did consider it to be an official docu-
ment, he (Lord Mounteash,l) did not consider the
present to be the proper time for discussing it ;
but he should certainly make some observations upon
it at the proper time. He thought a document more
violent had never been penned by one country respect-
ing another. He therefore asked the Noble Viscount
whether any official information had been received on
the subject ?

Lord MELBOURNE said he was really unable to
give any other auswcr to the question of the Noble
Earl than that he was not aware that, her Majesty's
Government had received any despatches from our
Ambassador to the United States ; but he apprehended,
from the form in which the Report alluded to by the
Noble Earl had appeared, and from the manner in
which it came, there could be no doubt of its authen-
ticity.

The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition
against certain clauses in the Drainage of Buildings Bid.
Th. Marquis of NOR MA NBY presented a peti•
tion from the Mayor and Corporation of Northampton,
in favour of the Drainage of Buildings Bill , also a pe-
tition from the Mayor and Corporation of Perth, in
.favour of some measure for the support of the poor; also
a petition from a gentleman, named Bassett, in the county
of Devon, praying for the establishment of local Courts for

_ ---
the recovery of small debts. The Noble Marquis said he
was directed, by the Select Committee on the Drainage
of Buldings Bill, to ask leave of their Lordships to
divide the Bill into. two. There was no intention to
abandon any part of the Bid ; but it was thought that,
by so doing, its object woul t be better attained.
TITHE COMPOSITION (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Viscount DUNCANNON the

---
Tithes Composition (Ireland) Bill was read a second
time and ordered to be committed on Thursday. The
Noble Viscount said the object of the Bill was to save
expense in the case of persons against whom proceedings
were t tken for the recovery of tithes in Ireland. In the
original Bill, each Particular case was obliged t) be
proceeded against by the Attorney-General in a sepa-
rate Bill, but it was found so expensive that the pre-
sent Bill was brought in to authorise the Attorney-
General to include any number of persons in the sarr.e
Bill provided they resided in the same diocese.
COURT OF EXCLEQUER(IRELAND)BILL.
On the mution of Viscount DUNCAN NON
the Court of Exchequer (Ireland) Bill, was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday.
The Noble Viscount said the object of the 811 was
to amend an error that was supposed to exist in the
former Bill.
POOR LAWS IN IRELAND.

shortilave
case
Lordships,
these
whichv , period l
The Earl of GLENGALL said he 'was sorry he had
so soon to make another mot:on on the subject of the
1 e bad moved for a secord re-
Poor-law Commissioners, and the Union of Olen-
rod. ln the month of Feb., 1840, he had moved for
certain returns respecting this Union ; and in the
mtuornnt,llLou
material difference in
the language of the two reports He was aware
when he lead them both to their Lordships the diffe-
rence might appear to be but trifling and immaterial ;
investigated, he felt it necessary t)
ft
ti‘hicarye was a very
but having upon two or three different occasions men-
tioned the subject in their Lordships' House, and
rbeeturns accurately brought before their
he had undertaken to prove. The ex-
being aware that this matter would in a very
n order that he might be able
stated that the writer
ebbed been returned to their Lordships'
with Mr. Butler for
theelet to make out
of
acquainted February,h
hliaodusbeeeinn
twenty-seven years, and that his character was without
the slightest reproach lhe Noble Lord then procee2el
to read part of the extract, and to show that there was
a great difference as between the two returns. He would
be able to show that there was a falsification in the re-
turns. He believed that in consequence of a debate
having taken place in their Lordships' House, and cer-
tain papers being moved for, it was not quite convc.mieat
t iiinet month3;natey
to the parties concerned tnat some of the circumstances
should appear. They had transposed the letters also,
as he should prove to their Lordships, in order to give a
different colouring to them. The Commissioners wished
to show they bad Liken the opinion of D. Phelan, Esq ,
who resided 07 years in the same town. It was stated
by him that Mr. Butler, the returning officer, had re-
-1 sided as a private gentleman in Clonniel. He (the Earl
of Glengi.ll) supposed that if the new Bill
paned, they would !rave a qualification for the
private gentleman whose income was 57.
The salary
of the returning officer was only 10/. a-year. He
should place upon their Lordships table the two Re-
ports—it was impossible that both could be correct.
The Noble Lord concluded by moving for copies of all
correspondence between the Poar-law Commissioners
and Denis Phelan, Esq., and other correspondence on
the subject of the appointment.
The Marquis of NOIIMANBY said be had no ob-
-1 ‘jeetion to the return:. It was bib desire to have

the matter sifted to the bottom ; not only in jus-
tice to the character of the individual concerned, but
f,:r the vindication of their Lordships' privileges. Tt.ere
certainly appeared to be some alteration:. He had
written to the Poor-law Commissioner, Mr. Nicholls,
stating what Lad oceurreo., and had every reason to bell ye
that he would be shortly is Loudon. He would state
to their Lordships in the first instance whateter expl ;-
nation r. Nicholls might give, and if that were not con-
sidered satisfactory it would be for their Lordships
to see what further steps might seem desirable.
The motion for the return was then agreed to.—The
House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 8.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'C!ock.
I3RIGHTON AND SHOREHAM ROAD BILL.
The E id of SURREY moved the second reading of
the 13righ ton and Shoreham Read B 11.

C.iptain PECIIELL, en behalf of his conFt;tnents,
opposed tile Bill. He bel'eved the Conunissioneri had

been misled by their lawyers as to their powers. A town
meeting had Lein held at Brighton on Saturday
for ene purpo:e of opposing the all. He thought he
was fully entitled to ask for a dday of the second
reading, and he should move as an amcmdment that

the Bill he reads second time on Wedneßlay.--
Mr. GORING opposed the Bill, and wished it bad
been competent for him to have moved that it be read
a second time that day six months.

Sir A. DALRYMPLE supported the second rcal-
ing of the Bill, alinitting at the &arta time that the
road between Brighton and Shoreham was one of the

worst in England.- He thought, however, the object
desired by the Hon. ald Gallant, Member might be

tained when the Bill was in Committee.

Mr. DARBY thought that any question might be
fairly discussed in Committee, and therefore lie should
vote for the second reading of the Bill.
Capt. PECHELL said if the Noble Earl would de-
lay the Committee, he would Waive his objection to the
Bid.

All that he was anxious for was that time should

be given to his constituents to state their objections to

the Bill.

The Earl of SURREY said he would postpone the
Committee t'll the 19th.

Capt. PECHELL said that such being the easy, he
would withdraw his opposition to the second reading of
the Bill.
Mr. GORING then moved that the 13,11 should be
read a second time that day six months.
After a few observations from Captain Peelle!! and
Mr. Esteourt, the amendment was withdrawn, the
_l3ll

read a second tune, and ordered to be cornrnittel on

he 19th.

Sir R. JENKINS presented a petition from Shrews-
bury against the Severn Navigation Bill.
Mr. 11. BERKELEY presented a petition from
Gloucestershire to the same effixt.

On the moticn of S:r T. COCHRANE the Ips-
wich D,;cks Bill was read a second time.

Mr. lIEN RY HOPE moved that the pet' tion of
t,te Mayor and C )rperation of Gloucester, of the

Gloucester and Bei.keltiy Canal Company, and of the
Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company (prcs:inted
311 March), for relcrriog the Severn Nav:gation Bill
t) a Select Committ e, be printed with the votes.—
Ordered.

On the motion for the second reading of the British
Plate-glass Compiny's Bill.
Mr. LABOUC HERE said he would not oppose
the second reading of the Bid, but, as he objected to
some of its clauses, he should reserve to himself the
right of proposing in Committee whatever alteration
might seem desirable.
Mr. BERNAL hoped that a clause would be intro-
duced to prevent the Company from being exempt front
any future. general L2gislation on the subject of Joint
Stock Companies.
Tie Bill was then read a second time.

Mr. KEMBLE presented a petition fr3in the trus-
tees of a chapel in Christchurch, Surrey, against the
Bill for making- a road from Blackfmrs-road to London
Bridge.—Referred to the Committee.