The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-10 00:00:00

11.1 tje:
Mt

LONDON:
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1841.

The Lords did. not meet yesterday.
. The Commons nattcas usual.
Mr. HINDLEY gave notice of a motion, for Friday, on
the Corn-laws, and Mr. WARD gave notice of a. motion,
fbi, the seine day, to the effect that the ATTORNEY-GE-
ifERAL be directed to prosecute Mr. SWANN, and
inother person, for bribery at the Cambridge election,
when Mr. MANNERS SUTTON was chosen.

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON explained to the House that
the author of the charge which he had made in the
house against Mr. O'CONNELL was a Mr. ROBERT
whom Mr. O'CONNELL said bore the appellation
of " lying Boa Twiss." So the Learned Sergeant took
nothing but a little additional shame by his new motion.
In reply to Mr. LOCKHART,. Mr. Fox MAULE said
•tilt Grovel-nine-tit had not the power to prevent Clerks of
3.lietkeee of the 'Nue in Scotland from acting as politi-
Ma%
Mr. Coutruotv ►i:ently tllowed his Bill against
lEaynooth t. drop,
The Rouse went into a Committee upon the Dog-

Carts Bill, after a few spirited and proper observations
by Messrs. PRYME, WARBURTON, and HUME, and after
a division, on which 141 voted to put down dog-carts
in the country, and 30 to allow them to •be kept
up. The Liberals may see by the use that
is made of their aggressions on the liberties of
the people, what a fatal mistake they have committed.
They were told by Sir R. INGLIS that, instead of op-
posing this Bill, they ought to bring in a Bill to repeal
the dogcart clause of the Metropolis Police Act.
In the Committee Mr. BILLER made an amusing
speech, which very happily ridiculed minute legislation ;
but it was thrown away on the gentlemen with micros-
copic intellects, to whom it was addressed, and the Bill
went through a Committee.
Mr. CRESSWELL moved that the House should go into
a Committee to address her MAJESTY on the subject of
the Danish claims.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL made a long speech against
the motion.
Sir STRATFORD CANNING and Mr. HUME supported
the motion.
The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER made a few ob-
servations, but did not oppose going into a Committee, as
he would express his opinions, he said, on bringing up the
Report. After a few words from Mr. CRESSWELL, Sir C.
GREY, and Mr. P. Howann, the House went into Com-
mittee ; a resolution was agreed to ; and the Report was
ordered to be taken into consideration to-day.
The Charitable Trusts Bill was read a third time and
passed after a division on the third clause, to which Sir
E. SUGDEN objected, as having been framed for a poli-
tical purpose. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assured the
House that the clause was necessary, and the House
showed that it was of the same opinion, by assenting to
the clause.
In a brief debate on the Houses of Industry (Ireland)
Bill, Sir E. KNATCHUULL condemned the Government
for presenting legislative measures contrary to their en-
gagements. It was shown, in reply, that the Bill in
question was not .a Government Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORY, however, swelled out very big,
and spoke of the Government being idle, incapable,
and inefficient. Mr. Fox MAULE said he regarded
the observations of the Hon. Member as utterly below
contempt ; and Colonel SIBTHORP, being thereat af-
fronted, walked out of the House. Then ensued a mo-
tion of Mr. WYNN to order the Gallant Officer to attend
in his place ; and his presence being obtained, there was
one of those customary scenes of retractations and apolo-
gies that are neither retractations nor apologies, and there
the matter ended.

The Clerk of the Peace (Lancaster) Bill was recom
mitted after a division; a clause adding Birmingham to
the Bill, was incorporated with it, one to add Manches-
ter was lost on a division, and finally the Report was re—
ceived, and -the Bill ordered to be read a third time
to-day.
On the further consideration of the Administration of
Justice Bill being moved, Sir E. SUGDEN proposed
a clause to prevent the Bill coming into
operation till the 10th of October, alleging that it was
highly improper to allow a Government that had not the
confidence of the House of Commons to exercise all the
patronage which this Bill would bestow. He objected
also to establishing a new Court of Chancery at this
period of the year, and implied that the elections would
suspend the business of the Courts.
A debate ensued, in which it was contended by Lord
JOHN RUSSELL that it was treating Lord COTTENHAM
most invidiously to suspend the period for the Bill coming
into operation. It was throwing a discredit on him
which he did not deserve. It had been settled between the
parties that the Bill should pass, and the present opposi-
tion to it was not expected. Lord Jolts RUSSELL manfully
spoke up for the LORD CHANCELLOR. The Tories are
quite proud of their new-found strength, and taunted the
Whigs with being in a minority, and told them that to
allow the Bill to pass as they wished it, and to allow
them to exercise this patronage, would: be a practical
proof of confidence in direct opposition to the vote of
want of confidence to which the House had come on Fri-
day. The motion was pressed to a division and the Mi-
nisters were defeated by 101 to 83.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then declared that he would
withdraw the Bill. Lord STANLEY threw on the Go-
vernment, if it did, the blame of delaying the adminis-
tration of justice. A good deal of crimination and
recrimination passed, and in the end the Bill was with-
drawn.

The measure has been at least two Sessions, if not
three, before Parliament ; and nothing but the urgency
of the case could have induced the Opposition to agree
th,:t it should pass this Session. Having sanctioned it,
to pr,:•ent it coming into operation till October—for a
scramble
..for patronage, as Mr. HAWES expressed it—
was, in our oizinion, a disgrace to any party. It was, so
far as the Bill is intended to promote the adminis-
tion of justice—s denial of justice to, suitors ;
and the conduct of the Tories deserves severe
censure. We cannot, howeyer, approve of the with-
drawal of the Bill for the same reason. It is more a
denial justice to withdraw it than to keep it back till
October. Lord .T. RUSSELL should, we think, have
thrown on the Tories the respnsibility of putting it off,
and should have passed it in the p;rfeet confidence that
the present Ministers will have to make the appointments.
The withdrawal implied, we think, a conN".jetion in Lord
John RUSSELL that he will not be in office in October.
Why should he express in any manner such a st:spicion?
Neither party did itself any honour by its conduct, and
both parties brought, as Mr. B. WooD remarked,
administration of justice into discredit by making the
appointment of the Judges an obvious political job.
After this matter was at an end, several measures
were forwarded, and at One; o'Clock the House ad-
journed.