The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-01 00:00:00

LONDON, SATUtiDAY,

IMPERIAL PARLIAM EN T.

HOUSE OF-LORDS, JAN. 31.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
at the usual hour.
The Duke of NORFOLK presented a petition from the
County:of Gloucester against Church-rates, and also praying
for the liberation of •John Thorogo3d, who was confined fur
the non-payment of Church-rates.
The Marquis of BUTE presented two petitions from
Scotland, against the intrus;on of Ministers into the
Scotch Church.

PRINCE ALBERT.

Lord BROUG HAM said he wished to ask a question re-
lative to a Bill of great importance brought in by the Noble
Lord on the Woolsack. It was most important that a
satisfactory understanding should prevail on that Bill, be-
cause he knew it was one upon which a very
strong feeling prevailed on the minds of many
of the Noble Lords in that House, and at the
same time, however much •he might feel the force of
that consideration, he would not make one unnecessary,
observation on a subject which he kr.ew must be painful.
He wished to ask his Noble and Learned Friend on the
Woolsack, in order to avoid 4.6 much as possible unplea-
sant discussion, whether be might bo disposed to make
some alteration in his Bill ? The only case 'in which
doubt could arise was, whether, suppoing the N9ble
Lord and those who agreed with him in his views of the
subject were disposed to allow the. second reading of the
Bill to night, as they did not object to the principle,
he (Lord Brougham) wished to know whether his Noble
and Learned Friend had any objection to state that, be-
tween this and the meeting of the Committee, he would
make the alteration to which he alluded ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR took it for granted
that some precedence would be allowed to Prince Albc t.
He contended that a power should be given to the Crown
to allow the Prince to take precedence after any heir
apparent to the Throne.
Lord BROUGHAM—To omtinuo during the life of
her Majesty.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was not prepared to
say so.
Lord BROUGHAM was sorry that his Noble and
Learned Friend was not prepared to go further than he
was doing. At all events, it was clea, Iv a case for Com-
mittee. All were agreed that the P. ince should have
some precedence, and it would be for the Committee to
say what that precedence should be.
The Duke of WELLINGTON fully adopted the
opinions of his Noble Friend opposite. He would, how-
ever, reserve his observations for the meeting of the com.
mittee.
Lord BROUG HAM then asked if his Noble and
Learned Friend had any objection to take the Bill into
consideration on Monday.
Lord MELBOURNE said that the right course Would
be to reserve those observations for the Committee.
It was very desirable that the Bill, which had passed
through Ore. other House of Parliament, should soon pass
through, that Housej he hoped that if their Lordships would
meet in .Conimittee on Monday, they would riot Object to
expediting the measure.
Lord BROUGHAM said, that not only was it not his
wish not to expedite it, but he would be ready to, proceed
with it on the morrow. They would then avoid interfering
'with the motion of the Right Rev. Prelate on Monday.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY begged to take
that opportunity of getting a, more distinct answer from
the Noble Viscount upon a question of much importance.
The Noble Viscount had come down to the House, and in
the most off-hand and cool manner made a statement, he
would not. say wilfully false, but most certainly not founded'
on fact. 'He had stated that he had had communication
with all 'the illustrious persons whose interests were
affected by the present Bill, and it had gone forth to the
world as a fact. Now he begged to ask most distinctly,
whether 'the heir presumptive to the Throne was not
more interested in the matter than any other illustrious
person ? and he would ask whether he had been corn-
-municated with at all upon the occasion ? He
would not charge the Noble Viscount with any wilful
misrepresentations, but he did charge hinj,.as'a Minister
of the Crown, with' 'a, dereliction of his\ duty in making
such a statement to thnf House. There *as alio another
question of much i pOrtance. The Noble Viscount
must be awarb",,that there" was a minors interest cOn-
cerned— had -he been constiltqd ? He must ;remind;
the Noble Viscetint, 'Were was 'd• great diffe en& between;
giving pteeednce over the Peers, and g; tireebdence,
alr over the sons' of George 111. The Viscount!
oughly to, reinembdrsthlt his family were in, inaebted
the-Have of 'Brunswick, and was that tc!, be put,
merely ibecattse " her Majesty was too,, marry a
• foreign riibee,?''The Noble Viscount bad sthtid distinctly
to that' Hou?e,'that be had communicated with all the' il-
lustrious persons concerned.—(Cries of "'Noolo.") He
would be most sorry to state anything that had not taken
place, but he had so understood the Noble Viscount, and it
had so gone forth to the world, and he was only
anxious that the true state of the case should be
known, because he was quite certain that the people of
England went along with him. The Duke of Cumberland
was called to Parliament by the Queen's writ, and why, he
would ask, should any other person take precedence of him.
Lord BROUGHAM did not at all wish to interrupt the
Noble Marquis, but he understood it had been agreed upon
that the discussion should not take place until Monday,
when probably it would be altogether avoided.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY—The Noble and
Learned Lord was always very ready to interrupt any
Noble Lord who was addressing the House, but when ho
himself was interrupted he did not take it in that kind
manner in which he expected others to do.
Lord BROUGHAM only wanted to make the Noble
Marquis aware that the debate was upon all hands intended
to be put off till Monday, when most probably there
would be no occasion for it whatever. He was
not objecting to the course of the Noble Marquis
—he was merely suggesting that by svhat.would probably
take place on Monday, it would be altogether unnecessary.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was anxious to
address the House, merely because the Noble Viscount
had charged his Noble Friend, the Duke of Wellington, as
being the cause of the delay which had taken place
with respect to this Bill.—(Hear.) He wanted to show
that such was not the case, and that the Noble Viscount
had come down in his off-hand and cool manner, and made
a statement to that House which was entirely foreign to the
fact.—(" No.") He would reserve what he had further
to say until Monday, but as the clause giving the Crown power
of unlimited precedence stood in the Bill, and as the prin-
ciple was recognised upon a second reading, he could not
,:low it to take place without entering his protest against it.
Lord BROUGHAM said he could well conceive how
the Noble Marquis might consent to the second reading,
though it did not pledge him to the support of the Bill.
Viscount MELBOURNE stated that in the observa-
tions he made, there was no allusion offered to his Majesty
the King of Hanover.

The -Marquis of LONDONDERRY' charged the
Ministers of the Crown with doing that which was
extremely reprehensible, and in making as strange a pro-
posal as ever came to the knowledge of that House.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought he had
already stated the reasons why he moved the
adjournment of the House—the question had been
brought forward with surprise, and that House ought to
have an opportunity of considering the course that ought
to be adopted. He avoided 'discussion at their last
meeting, and he thought the Noble Viscount might
have avoided making any charge against him. He
ought to have taken care to give the Bill its real
title, as it was not solely a Bill for the naturaliza-
tion of Prince Albert. The fault then was not his (the
Duke of Wellington's), but the fault of others. Under
those circumstances it was his duty to give the House an
opportunity of considering its merits. He was not, there-
fore, at all desirous to speak that evening on the
subject. The very instant the proposition was madc by
his Learned Friend, he said be had not the smallest ob-
jection to consider the question to-morrow.

SOCIALISM.
The Bishop of E XET ER presented a petition from the
clergy, manufacturers, and trades-people of Dudley, in the
county of Worcester, stating the petitioner's apprehension
at the extraordinary spread of Socialism, and praying the
House to adopt some measures to counteract its pernicious
effects. The Right Rev. Prelate presented a second
petition from some other place to a similar effect.
The RIGHT REV. PRELATE wished to ask the Noble
Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether the Superintendent Registrar of Birmingham
(Mr. Fair), to whom he had on a former occasion ad-
verted, still held that office ?

Lord NORMANBY said that in consequence of the
statements made by the Rev. Prelate on this subject on a
former occasion, he (the Marquis of Normanby) had felt
it his duty to make some inquiries on the subject. For
that purpose a copy of the charges against Mr. Fair had
been sent to the Registrar-General, of which he (the Noble
Lord) then held a copy in his hand. ( The statement
was an extract from the recent speech on Socialism, made
by the Bishop of Exeter, and which he (Lord Normanby)
then read. It stated that Mr. Fair held the joint offices
of Superintendent-Registrar of births, deaths and mar-
riages, and also the office of Vice-President of the
Socialist Society, that he had a printed board over his office
expressive of his officialstation among the Socialist Society;
and also that Mr. Fair, in the discharge of the duties of
that office, had to sign all the official documents of
the Socialists. He (Lord Normanby) thought that in
this instance a very proper step had been adopted in fur.
nishing a statement of the charges against Mr. Fair, from
the Rev. Prelate's speech. The result of his (the Marquis
of Normanby's) inquiries was, that Mr. Fair had no such
words as those mentioned by the Rev. Prelate on the
painted board referred to, r' ieh merely contained his name,
and had no reference tL any office held by him as
a member of the Socialist body. That in November
he had taken the room which he now occupied
as an office—that that office was in no way appropriated to
the use of the Socialists, but that there were several other
rooms on the same premises—one of which was occupied
as an office by the Socialists, but not at all con-
nected with the office which he ( Mr. Fair) held as Super-
intendent of Births, Deaths, and Marriages. Mr. Fair
also denied that he had been obliged to give up any
office, as stated in the speech of the Right Reverend
Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. He had requested
that Mr. Fair would have called to give him some
explanation on the subject, and ho rejoiced to have
beard from Mr. Fair, that since the month of June last
he had ceased to be an officer of the Society,
and he had ceased before that to have any con-
nection with the Association. He ( Lord Normanby) denied
therefore that Mr. Fair was naw an active agent of the
Society. Ile would have another opportunity of stating