The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-22 00:00:00

AIORNINCI EDITION

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 21.

The Commissioners were the LORD CHANCELLOR, he
Earl of CLARENDON, and Viscount DUNCANNON.
The Militia Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Appropriation Bill. was read a third time and
passed.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
The Marquis of NORMANBY moved the third read-
ing of the Criminal Justice Bill.
The Earl of WILTON said he should strenuously op-
pose this Bill on account of a certain gentleman con-
nected with Manchester (as we understood), who, if
this Bill passed, would be visited with gross injustice.
He (the Earl of Wilton) should therefore move that Man-
chester should be exempted from tile operation of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the claims of the
gentleman, whose cause the Noble Earl had advocated,
had been considered in the House of Commons and
rejected. He thought the claims of one individual
ought not to deprive the public of the benefit of a mea-
sure which, as a general measure, he thought none of
their Lordships opposed.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said the Noble and
Learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) had always
held, that when such reforms as these took
place, care should be taken that the parties who
were affected by them, should have compensation. He
(the Duke of Wellington) thought there never was a
stronger case than this. He advised their Lordships
never •x:, consent to be the means of inflicting injustice.
Lord BROUGHAM said there was no difference as to
the yinciple entertained by the Noble Duke and himself;
the eifference lay in the opinion of its application. The
gentleman to whom they were referring held
his situation at the pleasure of certain individuals,
it -was not a permanent situation.
Lord LYNDHURST said they had granted compen-
ss don to the clerics of the Magistrates of Birmingham
-and Warwick, and he could not see how they could ex-
;elude from compensation the gentleman who was clerk
to the Magistrates in Manchester, and who had held his
t office for upwardly of 35 years.
The .Nlarquis of NORMANBY said he thought that
no Noble Lord who left that House, on Friday evening,
; supposed that this subjeetwould be again brought on for
. discussion this evening.—(Hear, hear.) He thought their
Lordships did not understand the situation which this
Gentleman held. He was clerk to the stipendiary Ma-
i gistrates. Now suppose the Magistrate was to die, this
gentleman, holding a situation at the pleasure of one per-
. son, might, thereby, be deprived of it. How, then, was
he entitled to a compensation ?
Lord ABINGER said he had known the gentleman to
whom reference had been made, all his life, and he had
held. his situation under several stipendiary Magistrates,
and. he had given satisfaction to them all. His was a
public situation, and he had filled it to the satisfaction of
all parties. He (Lord Abinger) thought if they. gave
compensation to one they ought to give it to another.
The Earl of RADIRTOR said it was understood on
Friday evening that this discussion would not be
brought on again, and he understood the Noble Earl
(Wilton) when on his legs, to have said so.
The Earl of WILTON.--No, no ; I did not.
The Earl of RADNOR.—Then it was generally' un-
derstood by many Noble Lords on the opposite side of
the House, that it would not be brought on again. The
Noble Lord who spoke last, said that justice ought to
be done to this gentleman, by giving him compensation.
Why did not the Noble Lord propose compensation ?
The Noble Lord. was willing to do injustice to the
people of Birmingham and Warwick, to give compensa-
don to this one person.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from the Earl of Warwick, the
I Marquis. of Salisbury, and the Marquis of Normanby.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that he had voted
gain: I his Noble Friend the Earl of Wilton, but he fully
nde-:stood that this subject was to be brought on again
t his evening.
`rile? Marquis of NORMANBY said that he wished
t't
.eir Lordships not to divide without knowing that by
,greeing to the proposed amendment they would alter a
money clause, the clause being one of compensation.
Lord LYNDHURST said the effect of the amendment
would. be simply to withdraw Manchester from the opera-
tion of the Bill, and surely their privileges were not to be
checked in that respect because the clause was a compen-
sation clause.
Their Lordships thin divided—
Contents ~.;.y 7O
Non-co,:ttents
Majority for the amendment —34
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Marty-Lis of WESTMEATH wished to ask the
Noble Marciuis opposite a question relative to the late
P,,meeedinif ,s in the Clonmel Union. It appeared that Mr.
°tailley 'lea Mr. Nichols had left the responsibility of
those
P pr, Iceedings upon Mr. Hawley, Mr. Hancock, and
,Mr. h dun ; and he now wished to know, whether the
• "°"r7 invent intended to retain those persons in office.
With trgard to Mr. Phelan, he (the Marquis of West-
; mew" A) should say, after having carefully weighed the
ItAP fence, that unless he was much mistaken, that gentle-
r. an had grossly prevaricated when examined before
t seir Lordships.
The Marquis of NORMANBY complained of the
manner in which the Noble Marquis had mixed up ques-
:tion3 and assumptions. He did not think, however, that
that was the time for entering into an examination of
those assumptions, and he should therefore content him-
self .with saying, in reply to the question of the Noble
=Marquis. that it was not the intention of the Government
to dismiss any of the gentlemen named from their situa-

Lions. -
The Marquis of WESTMEATII—Then I wish the
Noble Marquis and the Government much joy of having
such functiouaries under them.(Laughter.)
• Lord BROUGHAM complained of the language
which the Noble Marquis had used towards a party who
had bwii examined as a witness in that House. He had
not 'himself any knowledge of the conduct of the witness
in question ; ut if there was any thing tS blame in that
conduct :et, Jim be properly tried, and, if just, let him
be punlsheo. He thought the Noble Marquis ought to
re-cor. side ; his expressions.
"71' .1 7.,larquis of NORMANBY said that after the
v Aer)._te had been lying for months on the table and left
• 1 ,noticed, it was a most improper proceeding to corn-
..tent, upon the characters of witnesses. The Noble Mar-
quis aught in his opinion to retract the language he had
Lis& I.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH—I cannot, I regret
to spy, do that consistently with my own good opinion of
self.—(Laughter.) -
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL then rapidly ad-
vanced amidst general laughter to the table of the House
for the purpose of presenting a petition of which he had
given notice. The Noble Earl having silenced some
other 'Peers who attempted to address the House at the
, sane time, proceeded to say that he had to present a pe-
from certain rate-payers of the Union of Fermoy.
I.l.'he petitioners complained that the Commission-
. ers had attempted to compel the guardians of
• the Union to purchase for a poor-house the
harrac!;.s of Fermoy, although that building was in a
0-ruined and dilapidated state. The guardians had, be-
pidoe, been promised that the purchase of the building
sitould not cost more than 4,9001., while the sum now
-demanded amounted to 7,8001. The Noble Earl, having
4antered into some detai!s upon the subject, concluded by
fitcpres.3inr; his condemnation of the conduct of the Com-
_

; vsioncrs.
The Marquis of NORMANBY thought it would he
to eater into the merits of the statement of the
kble ;CAA, inasmuch as it was made up of details which
1-apossiblo for the House at present to judge of.
; Ls it appeared that the question was to be brought before
, Court of Law, he would not himself offer any opinion
)n the difference between the Commissioners and the.
guardi4n s.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL explained, and the
subject dropped.
SCOTCH CHURCH.

The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented 120 pe-
titions from different parts of Scotland, signed by up-
wards of thirty thousand persons, praying for the aboli-
tion of Church patronage in Scotland. The Noble
-llarquissaid he had now presented upwards of 220 pe-
titions on this subject.
The Earl of ABERDEEN would ask the Noble Mar-
quis whether he supported the prayer of the petitioners.
He (the Earl of Aberdeen) would rather abolish Church
patrenage in Scotland, then suffer such a vote as had
been passed by the General Assembly. He thought that
their anti-patronage agitation had been a complete
failure, and as to the petitions that had been presented,
he did not believe that the generality of the people of
Scotland concurred in the prayer of those petitions.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE said that in answer
to the Noble Earl, he would state that he concurred in
the prayer of the petitioners, to a certain extent. He
was a decided advocate for the principle of non-intrusion.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM,
The petitions were ordered to be laid on the table.
CORN-LAWS.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from Marlborough, in favour of the Ministerial measures.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL iDresented several pe-
titions from Ireland against any alteration in the corn
and timber duties.
WATER FOR THE METROPOLIS.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER said he should
move in the next Session of Parliament for a Committee
to inquire into the reports that have been made respect-
ing a betted supply of water to the metropolis. He had
no doubt from those reports, that a better supply could
be obtained, with a better quality of water. No doubt a
Bill would be brought in in the next session for the pur-
pose of effecting this better supply.
Their Lordships then adjourned.