The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-10 00:00:00

DEPARTURES

Sir Charles Saxton, Bart., from the Brunswick Hotel,
Jermyn-street, for his seat in Berks ; the Dean of Win-
chester and Miss Rennell, from Crawley's Hotel, Albe-
marle-street, for Winchester; R. F. Shawe, Esq., for his
seat in Yorkshire ; the Rev. David and Mrs. Markham and
Miss Milner, from Hawkins's Hotel, Dover and Albe-
marle-streets, for their seats in Yorkshire; Mr. Fairfa.T,
Miss Fairfax, and Chas. Fairfax, Esq.', jun., from Mar-
shall Thompson's Hotel, Cavendish- square ; James Bourne,
Esq., and Jas. Moss, Esq., from ditto ; John F. Pal-
wasser' Esq., from ditto; George Coltman, Esq.,
ditto ; James Blair, Esq., from ditto. froln

DUNGARVAN ELECTION.-Extract of a
Seneschal
letter from Dungan-an, dated Tuesday :—" Sir
John Scott Lillie is exhibited here this day, accom-
panied by Mr. John O'Connell, the member for
Youghal, and strongly recommended to the electors
by the Liberator, who says he is an Irishman, a re-
pealer, a tithe destroyer, and a friend to the fisheries.
hBTT.
Barron
rie rs
fixed
pxneeodpu inde
announcement
are
rany
Mondaydeterminede.
n ecreatedx t
fo a great
The sensafi
nen hseehr
tro the election."—Dublin oppose Pierce George
circumstances.
Pilot.

I)UNGARVAN ELECTION.—Thp, election
for Dungarvan commenced on Thursday, and was to
have concluded yesterday. The death of tho.:Earl of
Burlington will produce rather a novel effect with re-
spect to this election. There were about a hutidred
of the electors who derived the right of suffrage from
holding leases under the Noble Earl during, or fo: the
term of his life, and, of course, the freehold ceased
with his death. If they reserved their votes u itil yes-
t?.rday and then voted, a question will aril e.vhether
they were good votes or not, their freehold! having:
terminated with his Lordship's death. Having been
duly registered and their votes accepted, will they be-
set aside or not ? If rejected, the return of the repeal.
candidate is considered as safe ; but if they voted on:
'Thursday, it is probable that Mr. Jacob has lost his
election.

~~.
,_..-"%

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 9.

- -
The house sat to-day at In minutes before 4 o'clock.
Mr. Burton, from the Trinity House, presented an
account of the Pilots' Fund for the year 1833.

Mr. Firth, from the office of the town Clerk of the
City of London, presented an account of the oath
taken upon the admission of persons to the freedom of
London.

Mr. Wainwright presented the report of the corn-
rnisqioners of the port of London.
Earl RADNOR presented a petition from the
dissenters of Greenwich, praying for relief.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions
from the hand-loom weavers of Northen against the
corn laws ; from the Protestant dissenters of
Horsham, for a dissolution of the connection between
church and state ; from the dissenters of Preston,
for a removal of their grievances, and from Frome
and several parishes in Suffolk, for the better ob-
servance of the Sabbath.

Earl BEAUCHAMP presented a petition of a si-
milar nature from Great Falkirk.

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a peti-
tion from Kettering for the protection of the esta-
blished church.

WARWICK BILL.

On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR,
counsel were called in, and proceeded to examine wit-
nesses on the Warwick Borough Bill.
Mr. Harrison stated that theyhad experienced con-
siderable difficulty in obtaining the witnesses, many
persons having left Warwick in order to evade the
summons.

Mrs. Oram was called to the bar, and examined in
order to prove that her husband left Warwick for the
purpose of avoiding being summoned.
fames M'Dermot, one of the voters of Warwick,
'was then examined, and at the conclusion of his evi-
dence, their lordships resumed public business.
A number of petitions were then presented, but
from the noise occasioned by the noble lords leaving
the house we could not distinguish in the gallery what
was their prayer, or from whence they came.
Order having been a little restored, _ _

Lord PL UNK ET said he rose for the pur-
pose of laying a bill on their lordships' table, to
alter and amend the practice of the Court of Chan-
cery in Ireland ; and in so doing, though he
would not trespass long on the patience of
the house, yet he felt convinced it was his
duty shortly to state the nature of the principal clauses
of the bill. He had not felt it necessary to make any
statement to the house on giving notice of his
intention to bring in the bill, because his
noble and learned friend on the woolsack had for-
merly introduced nearly the same amendments into
the practice in the Court of Chancery in Eng-
land, which it had been found had very greatly
reduced the expense to, and saved the time of, a suitor
in that court. The bill then presented would have
the effect of assimilating the practice in both
countries, and would tend much to shorten the very
great delay that was now necessarily incurred,' and
would also very much lessen the needless expense
that a suitor was now obliged to incur before bring-
ing his case before the Court. ( Hear.) He had
communicated the heads of the bill to a noble and
learned lord opposite (Eldon), who had most obli-
gingly approved of it, and therefore he had the more
confidence in -bringing it before the house. The first
clause of it went to repeal fit processes that were now
required to be gone through before a phintiffs case was
brought before the Court. They were perfectly ima
Binary processes, and of no use, but cost the plantiffs
from 30/. to 40/. before he had his case before the court.
The object of the first clause was to enable a party
being defendant to enter an appearance within a few
days after the issuing of the summons. The
second clause related only to the entering of
appearances, where service had been made. The
third clause would have the effect of taking away
a considerable expense on petitions and motions of
course. The expense of presenting petitions was at '
present very heavy—the cost of getting a side bar
motion being not less than 2/. or 3/., which would in
future be saved to suitors. Then he proposed to dimi-
nish a great deal of the delay that now occurred
to the unfortunate suitors. He next intended to make
an exemPlification unnecessary with regard to sales—
to do that which was not done by any English
bill, viz., to extend the powers of receivers ;
to provide for the oaths that were necessary to
be taken by various officers ; to provide for the adjudi-
cation with regard to costs ; and to alter and amend
the rules and regulations of proceedings before
the various officers of the Court of Chancery.
The noble and learned lord said he had stated the
topics thus hastily, promising that on the second read-
ing of the bill he would go more fully into all the
details. He then moved that it be read a first time.
The bill was then read a first time.

Lord PL UNK ET again rose. He said that when
on a former day he gave notice that he should to-
night be contented with moving the first reading
of his bill, he stated also that he should avail himself
of that opportunity to make some observations
which, although not strictly belonging to that mea-
sure, he trusted to the indulgence of their lordships
to be allowed to state, as they were concerning a
matter personal to himself. He, however, felt ,
that he owed no apology to their lordships in claim-
ing that indulgence, for he conceived that he
should rather have been called upon to ask forgive-
ness of the house if he had not brought forward some
observations on the subject. Many remarks had been
made of a harsh character, he must caH.them, respect-
ing him in another place. He did not complain,
because he felt he had no right, of those observations,
however he might smart and feel wounded by the
manner in which they had been made, for it was
the privilege and the right of any one to make
remarks on any public officer. ( Hear, hear, hear.)
It was intended that an individual who had been made
the object of an attack should be anxious for an opportu-
nity of making some observations in defence of himself.
He was not ashamed to say that he had felt deeply
wounded, and had been suffering more than he
could express to their lordships, and more perhaps
than belonged to the nature or the degree
of the attack that had been made upon him, since the
first moment that he had heard of its being made. He
considered their lordships were entitled to say tht,t the
character of public men was public property, and
that, independently of the situation which he had
the honour of holding under his Majesty, and
the place which he had the honour of filling
in that house, would make their lordships
anxious to hear whether the motives which had
been imputed to him, a member of their lord-
shins' house, which would make him unworthy
of holding a place in it, were true or not. ( Hear.)
The charge which had been made against him
he was under the necessity of particularly
stating. Although he would not unnecessarily oc-
cupy a moment of their time, yet he considered
it necessary to make the present subject fully under-
stood. The charge that had been made against him
some two months back in another place was this,
that, having been a member of a commission
which had been issued in Ireland in the year
1830, for the purpose of inquiring into certain
points which were the subject of the commission,
as to the propriety of disuniting certain parishes or
other ecclesiastical offices, and also for other objects
mentioned in the commission he had alluded to, he
had, as a member of the commission, in April,
1831, signed the report recommending the disconti-
nuing the deanery of Down and Raphoe ; and that,
being fully aware of this recommendation of disconti-
nuance, he solicited the deanery of Down from his noble
friend at the head of the government ; and that he ( Lord
Plunket) concealed from him that any such re-
commendation of discontinuance had been made by the
commissioners. He need not tell their lordships that
when such charges had been made against him he felt
shame that any one should bring such accusations
against him after upwards of thirty years of public life,
and he hoped that he might say which he had passed
through ,without a stain on his character. Such
charges were entirely void of fact. It might have
been supposed, therefore, that they originated with
persons without consideration, but he regretted to say
that they had been made against him by persons in
high station. His character had been defended by his
friends in the other house. After what had taken
place elsewhere, and after the vindication of his friends
in that place, he, perhaps, was not called upon
to do more than give a simple denial of the
facts, and no further assertion, perhaps, was ne-
cessary than his denial of the accusation on the word
of a gentleman. But he was not satisfied with that ;
but he felt called upon to examine at some length the
nature of the charges against him. In the first place
he did not know when the deanery of Down was con-
ferred on his son, and which he had never solicited,
that any such recommendation as had been stated had
been made. He had never signed any such recom-
mendation, and he had no reason to believe that any
mash recommendation had been made in the report.

The next point of the defence which he had to make
was that as soon as he heard that there was such re-
commendation in the report (and the report was made
in April, 1831, and the circumstance came to his
knowledge in July, 1832) he instantly came forward,
and said that the government should not be embar-
rassed in consequence of such appointment bei,4g
conferred on his son, and therefore took upon himself
to resign the office on the part of his son. 'The
first part of his defence was connected with the re-
port of the commissioners, and the part he had in
such report. At the time the accusation was first
made, he thought • that he had not signed any such
recommendation, and he found that he had not done
so. If any noble lord was disposed to see what he
( Lord Plunket) really did sign, he would refer him to
the report of the commissioners, printed by order of the
House of Commons. The Report was dated the
18th of April, 1831, and the warrant appointing the
commission was issued in the October preceding.
The report occupied only a few pages, but the body
of evidence and other documents filled a folio of 618
pages. He was no party to drawing up the report ;
he had nothing whatever to do with the Appendix ;
and to no part did he subscribe his name but at the end
of the first sixteen pages, namely, to the preliminary
report. This report was signed by seven commissioners,
of whom he was one. He had to state to their lord-
ships that it appeared on the face of the report to any
person who would examine it that it contained not a
single syllable with respect to the deanery of Down.
There was not a single syllable with respect to any
special discontinuances or separations. There was a
recommendation in the report to which he thought it
proper to refer, namely, that on vacancies arising in
certain livings united in the diocese of Armagh they
should be separated. No names, however, were men-
tioned. The report also recommended that an Act of
Parliament should be introduced and a general measure
framed to carry into effect a plan for the separation of
the unions ; but before this step was to be taken addi-
tional information was to be required. He (Lord P.)
certainly signed the preliminary report. He did not,
however, see the Appendix to the report, which
was signed by three of the Commissioners, but not by
himself. There was nothing that brought it to his
mind that he had seen the Appendix, and indeed he
was convinced that he had not. He had not been
placed in the commission as Chancellor of Ireland, be-
cause he was not in office at the time the commission
was appointed. He was not a member of the govern-
ment at the time, but was requested to allow his name
to be introduced, and to attend the commission. He
assented to the request. The preliminary report was
read at a meeting of the commissioners which he at-
tended, and he in the first instance refused to sign

it. He did so because his duties in the Court of
Chancery had prevented him attending the commis-
sion and making himself well acquainted with the sub-
ject, and he objected to sign it without evidence. The
first charge brought against him was that he had read
a report which he did not sign ; but the present charge
was that he had signed the report without reading it.
His objections were met by some of the commissioners
for whom he entertained great respect, who said that
his not signing it might lead to the presumption that he
did not approve of it ; and it was also pressed on him that
by merely affixing his name to the report he was not
pledged to all its details. He was at last induced to
sign the report, but he did so without reading the ap-
pendix of 600 pages. He was induced to sign it in
consequence of the high opinion he entertained of the
characters of the very distinguished persons the
framers of the report, who recommend in it the adop-
tion of certain general principles. Of those principles
he approved, and he was anxious not to throw any im-
pediment in the way of those recommendations. The
charge then against him was, that he had concealed
that from the knowledge of his noble friend ( Earl
Grey) which he (Lord Plunket) could not by any
possibility know. His defence was that he did not
know of the existence of the application of the recom-
mendation in the appendix. From the period when
the report was laid on the table, in April, until six
months after his son had been appointed, he was not
aware of the recommendation in the Appendix as to
the discontinuance of the deanery of Down. The first
document to which he should refer was a letter from the
Primate of Ireland of the date Bth March. On hearing I
the charges made against him be (Lord Plunket) 1
wrote to the primate on the subject. His grace was
pleased to say that to the best of his recollection, he
( Lord Plunket) did not take an active part in draw- 1
ing up the report, nor did any conversation take place
in his presence likely to lead him to a knowledge of 1
the recommendation of the commissioners with respect
to the deanery of Down ; that the appendix, in which
this recommendation was, had been drawn up by the
bishops of Down and Cloyue and himself (the Arch-
bishop of Armagh) ; and that it was not discussed
before the commissioners. The preliminary report
was drawn up by the Bishop of Down and another
person, and some alterations were made in it at the
recommendation and suggestion of the. Master of the
Rolls and Dr. Ratcliff, and it was read at a general
meeting of the commissioners, at which he believed the
noble lord (Plunket) was present. He (Lord Plunket)
wrote another letter to the Primate as to what occurred
at the meeting of the Commissioners when the report I
was read, and his Grace in his answer said that he 1
perfectly recollected that he (Lord Plunket) declined
to sign the report for the reasons he had stated. The
noble and learned lord then proceeded to state that he 1
had also written a letter to Dr. Ratcliff on the subject,
and that gentleman in his answer also said he perfectly
recollected that he ( Lord Plunket) refused to sign
the draft of the report in the first instance, and that
he did not do so without much persuasion. The Se-
cretary of the Commission also stated that he perfectly
well remembered that the noble and learned lord had
refused to sign the report, because the business of the
Court -of Chancery had prevented him attending to
the Commission. He now came to what took place
in July, 1832. A right hon. gentleman in the other
House of Parliament stated that he (Lord Plunket)
had stated before that the Chancellor of Ireland was
one of the Commissioners who had recommended that
the deanery of Down should not be filled up in case of
a vacancy, and yet, notwithstanding this recommend-
ation, he had got his son appointed to it, and the right
hon. gentleman called upon the right hon. Secretary
for Ireland for an explanation. His right hon. friend
(Mr. Stanley) informed him of this. He ( Lord Plun-
ket) instantly declared to his right hon. friend, as he
stated to their lordships, that he was altogether igno-
rant of any such recommendation in the report of the
Commissioners, and declared that he would not suffer
the Government of the country to be in the least de-
gree embarrassed on his account, and therefore autho-
rized his right hon. friend to say that there was an
actual vacancy in the deanery of Down. A statement
to this effect was made in Parliament, and his right
hon. friend said that he would bring forward a bill to
carry this suggestion into effect. Shortly after this
the right hon. Secretary brought in a bill for the pur-
pose, and after that he ( Lord Plunket) was not more
concerned in the matt& than any other member of his
Majesty's Government. It was not till the 13th of
March that the charge that he had alluded to had been
made against him. He was as much surprised at hear-
ing such a charge brought against him as any of their
lordships would have been at a similar charge. ( Hear,
hear.) The matter had been completed, and the. re-
sult was that his son had given up the deanery of
Down. He ought also to state that when his son ac-
cepted of the deanery, he gave up a living which he
held of 1,2001. a year, and that by the result he would
be a loser of some hundreds a year. (Hear, hear.)
He did not bring any charges against those who ac-
cused him, but he felt called upon to vindicate his
character, which he trusted he had done to the satis-
faction of their lordships. ( Hear, hear.)
Earl GREY could not refrain from adding a few
words to what had fallen from his noble and learned
friend. Any person who knew his noble and learned
friend would be satisfied with simply hearing him de-
clare that the charges made against him were without
foundation ; but all those who might have felt disposed
to entertain an unfavourable view of his noble and
learned friend's conduct, in consequence of the charges
made against him in another place, must now be sa-
tisfied with the mode in which he had explained the
transactions, and which must for ever completely re-
lieve him from the accusations that had been brought
forward. After what his noble and learned friend had
stated, he ( Earl Grey) was anxious himself to state
what had passed in his knowledge, and the whole
share that he had in the transaction. His noble and
learned friend had- satisfied the house that he was ig-
norant of the recommendation of the commissioners at
the tithe the preferment was accepted by his son ; and
he ( Earl Grey) could also say that he was ignorant of
any such recommendation. He thought that he was
justified in recommending the gentleman in question
to the preferment, because, in the first place, he was
a person fitted for such preferment, and next, because
he believed that it would give satisfaction to his noble
and learned friend to nave it bestowed on his son. He
did not feel it necessary to do more than observe that
the preferment was given unsolicited by his noble and
learned friend. ( Hear.) As it had turned out, his

noble and learned friend's son had lost a valuable
ing by obtaining the preferment. .He -felt bound"to
state what he had in justice to his noble friend; and
his confidence in the integrity and purity of conduct
of his noble friend had been confirmed by what had
taken place. ( Hear, hear.)
The Earl of WICKLOW hoped that some time
would elapse before the second reading of the bill the
noble and learned lord had that night laid on the table.
Lord PLUNKET did not anticipate that there
would be any considerable opposition to the measure.
He was anxious, if possible, that it should pass before
the 22d of May, when he should be obliged to leave
for Ireland. He would propose the second reading
for Tuesday.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought that time should
be given to send the bill to Ireland, where it would be
properly examined.
At the suggestion of the Earl of WICKLOW, it
was finally agreed that the bill should be read a second
time on Tuesday next.
One or two private bills were then advanced a stage.

WARWICK BOROUGH BILL.
The examination of witnesses on this bill was then
resumed.
The first witness examined was John M'Donough.
Michael Connell was next examined, and having
withdrawn from the bar,
The Earl of DURHAM said he was informed that
their lordships' messenger had met with some obstruc-
tion in his attempt to serve process on a person named
Dean and other witnesses in Warwick.
Mr. Butt, a messenger, was called to the bar, and
read an extract from a letter written by his son, acting
as his deputy in Warwick. It stated that the doors of
Dean and other witnesses were closed against him,
and he was on that account unable to serve process.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said a warrant
could not issue to compel the attendance of witnesses
upon information of this kind. It would be necessary
to have the evidence upon oath of the messenger him-
self.
The next witness called was Charles Taylor, at the
conclusion of whose evidence the house adjourned.