The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-16 00:00:00

THE SEMI, LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 16, 1840.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

PLYMOUTH AND DEVONPORT SPRING RACES.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS

FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
(From the Globe.)
The Tories are naturally angry at the notoriety given
to their prcee.tdings at Ludlow and Cambridge. They
would have it supposed that because the writs for those
places have been allowed to issue, the debates in the
House of Commons, which took place respecting them,
were only so much waste of valuable time—an injury
to the country, by the interruption thus occasioned to
public business ! Never were they more mistaken.
The object was to draw public attention to the system of
bribery and corruption by which the pretended " re.action"
in the public mind in favour of Tory ism has been procured,
that the worth of " Conservative triumphs" may be cor-
rectly estimated; and also, that the necessity for checking
the demoralizing process may be felt, and the legislative
remedy proposed by Lord J. Russell be supported by public
opinion, in order to its success. It is of comparatively little
moment whether the writs for Ludlow and Cambridge be
issued or withheld ; although to judge from the exultation
of the Tory Press, it would appear that, because the bo-
roughs are not dlsfranchised, the iniquitous practices, shorn
beyond all question to have extensively prevailed at the
last and former elections, had been disproved. To every
well regulated mind it must afford far higher gratification,
that increased obstacles are about to be placed in the way
of crime, than that foram criminals have been even justly
punished.

(From the Standard.)
The House of Lords was last night occupied during
the greater part of its sitting in hearing the argu-
ment of Sir Charles Wetherell, as counsel for the
City of Dublin, against the Irish Municipal Corpora_
;ions Bill. Before the counsel were called in the
Marquis of Lansdowne made an attempt to limit the
counsel to a particular line of argument, which he said
was the consideration of the details of the Bill; the attempt
was unjust, but it was el3o happily absurd. It is as unjust
to limit a counsel to a particular line of argument, as it
would be to dictate for him the only arguments which he
shall employ, and the order in which he shall employ
them ; both indeed come to the same thing in the end ;
but in a Bill like that before the House, consisting of
a conger ies of minute details, and,. nogliug else, the
details are in fact the principle. When the Corporation of
Dublin claims to be spared from the operation of the mea-
sure, it demands no more than an amendment done detail;
but the objections to all the clauses of the Bill are surely
reasons in support of that demand. Lord Lansdowne's
attempt was, of course, unsuccessful; and Sir Charles We-
therell used the freedom to which he was entitled in corn-
batting the whole of the iniquitous, hateful, and most dan-
gerous measure. .

(From tho Courier.)
It is the peculiar singularity of all Lord John Russell's
attempts in legislation and administration, that he has
never yet, that we remember, passed an Act which has not
had to be revised, amended, or repealed, generally in the
neat but always in some ensuing Session of Parliament; and
so it is with the Manchester Charter. But the ease being in
the Courts of Law, and pending for trial and judgment,
why does Mr. Philips bring it before the House of Com-
mons, where it is as much out of place as his own power-
looms and small wares would be ? Although of great
local interest, it is not a matter that concerns the nation
or the House delegated solely to perform the business of
the nation. Why, with equal propriety the Honourable
Member might question his Learned Friend in the House,
when the proceedings in some action of his own for tapes,
galloons, or other goods sold and delivered to a debtor,
would come on for argument, or how it stood on the list of
untried causes. There is no seeing, indeed, where the
new practice would stop.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 15.

Their Lordships met at a Quarter before Five o'Clock.
Lord RA YL Eft; H presented petitions from Walvvortb,
in favour of Church Extension, and for the exclusion of
Roman Catholics from Parliament.

The Earl of ROSEBERY presented a petition, nu-
merously signed, from inhabitants of the Royal Burgh of
Selkirk, complaining of the additional duties imposed upon
the post-masters under the new Post-office regulations.
The Tithes Commutation Bill ( Ireland) then passed I
through Committee, and was reported.
The Insolvent Debtors Act Continuation Bill (Ireland)
also went through Committee, and was reported.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH begged leave to put
a question to the Noble Viscount opposite respecting the
persecution of the Jews at Damascus. He wished to know
whether her Majesty's Government had exerted its influ-
ence to pat a stop to the barbarities of which those people
had been the objects ?
Lord MELBOURNE'S answer was not heard in the
gallery.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented a pcti•
tion from Northampton against the grant to the College
of Maynooth.
Lord STR ANG FORD begged to call the attention of
the Noble Viscount, to the papers laid on the table re-
specting the piracies of the Albanians on the shores of
the Adriatic. It. appeared that application had been
made to her Majesty's Government on the part of the
King of Naples, requesting her Majesty's good offices in
procuring the suppression of the piracies. But on the
'?7th of February, 183 s, Lord Palmerston replied to
Count Rudolph to the effect that her Majesty could not
attend to any request from the Neapolitan Government
until the Sulphur question was settled ; whereupon the
Count wrote to Lord Palmerston expressing his surprise
at receiving such an answer after the promise of assistance
which her Majesty's Government had previously given to
the Government of the King of Naples. That note of
Count Rodolpla was not included in the papers laid upon
the table. He would be glad to have a return of it.
Lord MELBOURNE—Vert well.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH presented a petition
from 113 inhabitants of Bath, complaining that whilst nu-
merous prosecutions for seditious language had taken place
in England, the law officers of the Crown took no notice
whatever of more seditious and mischievous language which
was indulged in in Ireland, and praying that the parties
alluded to in Ireland should be prosecuted forthwith.
In answer to a question from Lord GLENG AL ref Peet-
leg certain correspondence relating to appointments under
the Poor law Commissioners in Ireland,
The Marquis of NORM ANBY said that if the corres-
pondence was in existence, it should be laid on the table.
Lord EL LENBOROUG H said, he found in the papers
laid on the table that the proceedings of the Commis-
sioners in respect to valuations were illegal.
The Marquis of NORMA NB Y said he should certainly
call the attention of the Commissioners to the subject re-
ferred to by the Noble Lord. The Noble Marquis then
laid on the table of the House returns from the Poor-law
Commissioners in Ireland.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a peti-
tion from South Shields, praying for medical reform.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Lord KENYON moved that Counsel should again be
called in and heard on the Irish Corporation Bill.
Sir C. WETHSRELL and Mr. BuTr then advanced to
the bar of the House.

Mr. BUTT, in addressing their Lordships, commenced
by stating that it then became his duty to follow up the
statements which had been made to their Lord-
ships on behalf of the Corporation of Dublin by
his Learned Friend on last evening, He would
endeavour to show their Lordships that the
Bill then before the House for regulat'ng the Corporations
of Ireland would tend to confiscate the rights of the city
of Dublin, and should not be adopted by their Lordships.
In the observations he would address to the House he
would confine himself strictly to the subject, and as be
was aware that their Lordships were of opinion that the
Municipal Corporations of Ireland required the interference
of the Legislature, he felt that against that principle lie
had no right to contend. Tile Dublin corpoiatiou had
stated that they would cheerfully acquiesce in any mea-
sure of reform which their Lordships might propose
and which would not lead to the overthrow of Protestant
institutions and of ancient charters. He would proceed to
show their Lordships that the proposed measure was not
warranted by any acts of the Irish Corporations—that as
regarded individuals it was unjust, and that as regarded
the public it would lead to the most mischievous results.
(The Learned Gentleman then read petitions from several
of the Guilds of Dublin, containing petitions against the
Bill before the House, and challenging investigation into
every part of the corporate management of the City
of Dublin.) He would divide the Bill into two parts.
It was a Bill of enfranchisement and a Bill of dis-
franchisement. It began by sweeping away every ex-
isting right of the Corporation of Dublin. But no-
thing could justify that first part of the Bill, unless
some charges were established against the Corporation, or
unless it could be shown that their rights were inconsistent
with the welfare of the community. Neither of these
points had been established, and yet their Lordships were
called on degrade the members of the Corporation—for to
punish was to degrade. The rights of the Dublin Cor-
poration were founded on ancient and repeatedly-renewed
charters. Those rights had been granted them for
the purpose of serving as a stronghold for
the English and afterwards for the Protestant
patty in Ireland, and he would say that the Corporation
had completely fulfilled their trust. The case attempted
to be made out against them was to be found in the Re-
port of the Commissioners. That Commission, however,
he had no hesitation in saying, was a partial and a preju-
diced one. The chief member of that Commission was
Mr. Perrin, and such an appointment alone would show
how unfair a tribunal the Commission must have been.
Mr. Perrin had been in the year 1831 a candidate for the
City of Dublin, with Sir Robert Harty on the Reform
interest, but a Committee of the House of Commons
decided that they had been guilty of
bribery, and they bad
thus been incapacitated from sitting in the House of
Commons. Mr. Perrin, however, who had in the year
1831 been declared guilty of bribery, was appointed, in the
year 1833, the Chief Judge of a Commission instituted
to investigate the proceedings of the Dublin Corporation.
It should also be recollected that Mr. Hudson, another
member of the Commission, had been also found guilty of
bribery by the House of Commons, while aiding in the
election of Mr. Perrin. There mere other charges against
the Commission. It was stated in the evidence taken
before them, that no Catholics ever served as Grand
Jurors in Dublin, while three Catholics had served on that
Grand Jury. The fact was, that it could not be a matter
of surprise to any one that the evidence of the Commis-
sioners was filled with the falsest accusations. Every man
who wished was invited by the Commission to come for-
ward and slander the members of the Corporation at
his pleasure. There was another circumstance to
which he wished to call their Loalships' attention.
The Corporation had expressed a wish to produce
witnesses who might refute the previous evidence
taken before the Commissioners, hut the granting
of that request had at first been deferred, and had
afterwards never taken place. ( The Learned Gentleman
then went into some of the charges against ,
Corpora-
, the orpora-
, tion contained in the Report of the Commissioners.) One
of those charges was that the Corporation was in debt,
r and that that debt had existed before the memory of man.
But what was the truth upon that subject? The Corpo-
ration had first contracted the debt in question by levying

soldiers and seamen for the defence of the country, and
another part of it was incurred by the unexpected fail-
ure of their treasurer. The principal charge, however,
against the Corporation of Dublin was its exclusiveness.
He admitted that exclusiveness ; but until the passing of
the Catholic Relief Bill in 1829 that exclusiveness was
sanctioned by the British laws, and he thought that
since that period much should be allowed for
ancient habits and prejudices. But whatever might
have been the faults of the Dublin Corporation,
their Lordships could not inflict a greater curse on
Ireland, than by establishing such Corporations as the
Bill proposed. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to
make various objections to the Bill—to the partisan spirit
of the valuators—to the want of a bona fide interest on
the part of voters, and to the inevitable consequence which
would follow from it, of swamping property by numbers.
He concluded by imploring their Lordships, in the name
of the gentry, the Protestants, and a large portion of the
Catholics themselves, to reject the measure. (The
Learned Gentleman then retired, having_ been throughout
his address listened to with the profoundest attention and
at its close some Peers offered him their congratulations.)
Lord MELBOURNE then moved that the House
should go into Committee on the Bill, if there was no
objection.
The Duke of WELLINGTON, warmly—There is
every objection. For my part, I will not consent to go
into Committee on the Bill without being able to discuss
it in a full Ilcuse. There are several most important points to
be considered before the House can go into Committee,
according to my opinion. I will tell the Noble Lord that
I will not consent to go on with the consideration of the
subject until we have another Bill (the Poor-law Amend-
ment Ireland Bill, we believe) before the House, and until
can see what is really the intention of Government with re-
spect to the future arrangements to be made on the subject.
Lord MELBOURNE said that their Lordships would
soon have the Bill referred to by the Noble Duke from
the House of Commons.

The Earl -of GLE NG ALL also expressed his convic-
tion of the necessity for further delay.
Lord MELBOURNE then moved that the. House
should go into ComMittee on that day week.
The proposal was agreed to.
The Marquis of WE ST,O EATH could not allow the
adjournment of the-116;14C to, take place without exprels-
ing his gratification at finding than the Bill was not to be
hastily proceeded with. He was convinced that the per-
manence of the connexion between Great Britain and
Ireland depended on n cool, calm, and deliberate consi-
deration of the question.
Lord MELBOURNE said that from what he could
perceive there was very little chance that the Bill would
meet then with the cool, calm, and deliberate considers-
' tion to which the Noble Marquis had referred.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, M4r I.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.

The Reports on the Roxburgh and Selkirk Roads Bill
was laid on the table, as was also the Report on the Stoke
Brunen (Northampton) Enclosure Bill.
On the motion of Colonel CONOLLY, the Dublin
and Drogheda Railway Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of Lord EUSTON, the Kircudbright
Road Bill was read a second time.

Mr. I3ARNEBY moved the Order of the Day for the
second reading of the St. Harman (Radnor) Enclosure
Bill.

Mr. W. A. WILLIAMS (Monmouth) took that
opportunity of presenting a petition from a ma
jority of the landowners and other parishioners
against the Bill. The petitioners stated that the principal
part of the lands proposed to be enclosed consisted of peat-
bog and moss, from which the poor of the adjoining four
parishes derived their only supply of fuel, there being no
coal within twenty miles. The remainder of the land was
better fitted for the pasture of shceo and cattle than it could
be made for cultivation. The Bill would be a grievous
injury to the poor of those parishes.
BARN EB Y said that all the parishes except one
had been struck out of the Bill.

Mr. WlLLlAMShaiialight to complain of the unfair-
nets and irregularity of the manner in which the
.Bill was
dealt with, without notice to the persons whose interests
were to be affected by it. Hear, hear.) He com-
plained also of the practice of gentlemen unconnected
;tith the locality going round to Members on both sides
of the House canvassing for votes. It was a practice
which was calculated to add to the disrepute of Private
Bills. The petitioners were at first favourable to the
Bill, until they found that the rights of the poor were dis-
regarded, and that they were to be deprived of their sup-
ply of peat and moss.
Mr. BARNEBY denied that he had asked for a single
vote upon this Bill. This Bill, so far from damaging the
poor, would benefit them, for Mr. Watts now, according
to the decision of a Court of Law, had the power to eject
the whole of the parties; he did not wish to do so, but
wanted to pass the Bill, which would secure to the poor
privileges for obtaining fuel which they did not now possess.
Mr. J. JONES supported the Bill upon its own merits.
He did not know Mr. Watts even by sight.
Mr. WARBURTON suggested to the Hon. Member
to delay the second reading of the Bill, in order that the
11-inse might ascertain what were the feelings and wishes
of the parties interested.
Lord G. SOMERSET supported the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was anxious that the
Bill should be read a second time.

Mr. BARN EBY could not consent to the postpone-
ment of the W.ll.

Mr. WIL LIA NIS thought the least the House could
do was to agree to the suggestion of the Hon. Member for
Bridport, and afford time to ascertain the wishes of
:Al pasties resident in the parish. He believed the Bill
would promote solely the interests of Mr. Watt to the
great prejudice and detriment of the poor of the parish.
Sir E. WILMOT said, these persons fancying they bad
certain rights, had been guilty of great violations of the
law, lie maintained this Bill instead of being a benefit
to the rich to the prejudice of the poor, was solely for the
benefit of the latter.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but the House
did not divide, the amendment being withdrawn.
The Bill was then read a second time. _ _

Lord J. STUART brc;l;t up the Report of the
Committee on the Ayr Water Works.
Mr. HOSKINS presented a petition from the Great
Western Railway Company, praying to be heard by coun-
sel against the Birmingham and Thames Junction Railway.
On the motion of Capt. BOLDER 3, Kolman's Patents'
Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed.
Mr. A. BROOKE presented petitions from Roscom-
mon in favour of the Irish Registration Bill.
Mr. WYNN ELLIS presented a petition from a parish
in Leicester against any grant of public money for Church
Extension.

Colonel CONOLLY presented petitions from the
county of Down against the importation of foreign flour
into Ireland.

Sir R. B ATE SON preLented a petition from the county
of Londonderry in favour of the Irish Registration Bill.
Mr. F. FRENCH presented a petition from the county
of Roscommon against the Irish Registration Bill ; also a
petition from the Guardians of the Poor-law Union of
Roscommon, unanimously agreed to by the Board, praying
for an amendment of that part of the Irish Poor-law Act
which gave the Commissioners absolute and unlimited
power over the Board of Guardians, and praying that the
Commissioners may not have the power of imposing and
levying rates in opposition to the wishes of the Board of
Guardians, and also that all disputes between the Board
of Guardians and the Commissioners might be settled by
the Judges of Assize, and that the proceedings of the
Board of Guardians might be made public if the Board
thought fit.
Mr. VIGORS presented a petition from Carlow against
the opium trade: also a petition from Surrey in favour of
a total repeal of the Corn-laws, (as we understood. )
Sir R. INGLIS presented several petitioners praying for
Church Extension ; also a petition from some place in the
county of Gloucester, against any further grant to the
College of Maynooth% also a petition from the Dean and
Chapter of Chichester, against any reduction in the estab-
blishment of their Cathedral.

Mr. BETHELL gave notice that when the Huwe
went into Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Act,
he would move certain clauses by way of amendment.
THE MILLION FUND.

Mr. SHAW wished to ask the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for Ireland a question which related to the Irish
clergy. The Noble Lord was aware that in the
year 1833 the Million Act was passed in favour
of that body. About 640,0001. of the sum had been
drawn by the Irish Clergy ; and in the year 1836,
by the 6th and 7th of King William the Fourth, 100,000/.
out of the million was advanced to the Board of Works in
Ireland. In 1838, when the Act had passed regulating
the payment in Ireland, a balance of 260,000/. was
directed to be applied to the payment of the arrears
due on the Irish tithes; and at the same time it was stated
that the Irish tithe-owners might expect a payment of
70 per cent. on the arrears due to them. Thirty per cent.
was all they received; and he would ask the Noble Lord
whether there was any reasonable prospect of the arrears
being paid over. He also wished to ask the Noble
' Lord whether he was aware that a sum of 100,0001.
lent to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland might
be expected to be paid, or whether there was any pros-
pect of its being restored to its original purpose.
Lord MO RPET H said 640,0001. had been applied
under the Million Act for the payment of the incomes of
the Irish Clergy in 1831, 1832, 1833. In 1836, 100,0001.
was applied by the House for the promotion of public
works in Ireland, theßoard having previously lent 100,000/.
to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to meet the deficiency in
the vestry cess, at the passing of the Church Tetnporalities
Act. 260,0001. had been applied to the further relief of
the clergy in 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837; but it would not be
in the power of the Government to apply any more without
fresh Parliamentary powers; for which the Government
did not mean to ask, though they would be glad if they
now possessed them. As to the 100,000/. lent to the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it had not yet, though re-
peated applications had been made, been repaid.
POSTAGE.
Lord NO RRE YS asked, if it were true that there was
an intention of issuing a new Treasury minute as to postage
stamps ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
he had not heard of it, and be supposed he should have
heard of it had such an intention been
BUDGET entertained.
THE .

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having
d the order of the day for the House resolving itself
into
Triovea
Committee, of the whole House, of Whys and
111eans, the House accordingly resolved into the said
Committee, Mr. Bernal in the chair.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then
said,—Sir, in laying before the House the financial state-
ment, which it is my duty to give, I propose to follow
the course which has been usual upon these occa-
sions, and which is dictated not less by the nature
of the subject than by custom, first to state to the House
the income and expenditure of the past year, and then
lay before the House the estimated expenditure for the
current year, and detail the expectation I entertain as to
the product of the revenue as it now stands Having
compared the estimate of the expenses with the estimate
of the income as it now stands, it will then be ni) duty