The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-11 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 11, 1833.

herself off, as there was no charge against her; and
if the prosecutor had had any sense of shame ht
would not have brought her to the office.
They then quitted the office by each other's side.
Mary upbraiding him with " breach of promise," and
he reproaching her with ingratitude and robbery.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, 31.4 r 10

On the Earl of SHAFTESBURY taking his seat on the
woolsack, at five o'clock,
Lord KENYON presented a petition for the abolition
of slavery.
Lord DACRE presented petitions to the same effect
from Winchester.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions to th,
same effect.
Lord LYNDHURST presented petitions from Bir-
mingham against the Local Courts Bill.
Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition from the Tower
Hamlets, signed by 25,116 persons, for the total and imme-
diate abolition of slavery, and similar petitions from Ayle
ford, Taunton, D trlington, the female inhabitants of Read-
ing, Newbury, Kingston-upon-Thames, Chester, Roches-
ter, Chatham, Stroud and its vicinity, and other places, to
the number of two hundred.
Earl GREY laid upon the table, by his Majesty's com-
mand, papers moved for by a Noble Earl (Aberdeen) a
few evenings since, relating to the French expedition to

Algiers.
On the Earl of RADNOR moving the second reading
of the Stafford Bribery Election Bill,
Lord LYNDHURST rose to make some observations
arising out of the report of the Committee, in order that their
Lordships might be prepared for due consideration of
the point when the Bill went into Committee. It ap-
peared that the only proceeding now pending in the
other House of Parliament was a proceeding under the
Greenwich Act, which was a sort of judicial proceed-
ing, each party having tie right to examine such wit-
nesses as he thought proper. It was also in
their power to call persons not necessary for the
support of their case, but in order to indemnify
them against the consequences of their being concerned in
acts of bribery. If their Lordships should think proper
to pass this Bill, he should call their attention to this
point for the purpose of preventing, if possible, such
abuse. This Bill was one which ought to put them upon
their guard, and make them examine Bills coming from the
other House. This Bill was not like other Bills directed
to the point of indemnifying persons who might be exa-
mined as witnesses, for its object was to indem-
nify persons, whether examined as witnesses or not,
of whatever condition, against the consequences of
their violation of the law. This appears from the Bill,
and was quite manifest from the evidence given.
By the Bill, as it then stood, the candidates were indem-
nified from all penal consequences, except the losing of
their seats. It was clear that the wording of the Act was
not accidental ; he had compared it with former Acts, and
was convinced the person who framed the Bill must have had
those Acts before him. He merely mentioned that, to show
the necessity for their Lordships to look very narrowly id.
all Bills that came up from the other House, especially
those which professed to have a virtuous object in
view. He did not intend to oppose the second reading, but
hoped it would be so ameliorated in a future stage as to be
rendered innocuous.

Lord WYNFORD spoke to the same purport.
The Earl of RADNOR said, though he bad moved the
second reading of the Bill, he was not answerable for the
language used in it.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble and
Learned Lord was wrong in his statements, for the
cases between the present and the former Bills were very
different.

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Mo❑day.
The Tiles Duty Repeal Bill went through a Committee,
and was reported without amendment.
The London and Greenwich Railway Bill wag read a
second time. The other Bills on the table were forwarded
a stage, and the House adjourned.