The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON. TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1834.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, July 7.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack a
few minutes after five o'clock.
Numerous petitions praying for protection to the Esta-
blished Church by the Dukes of Wellington and Bucking-
ham, Lord Rolle, and the Bishops of Carlisle and London,
were presented.
Mr. BERNAL, and others from the Commons, brought
up the Insolvent Debtor (Ireland) Bill, the Service
of Process in the Courts of Chancery and Exchequer in
England and Ireland Bill, also the Dundee Gaol Bill, with
the Lords amendments.—Agreed to.
Alderman Woon brought up the City of London Police
Improvement Bill.
The Earl of MALME SB UR Y gave notice that on the
second reading of the Poor Laws Amendment Bill, he would
move that it be taken into consideration next session of Par-
liament.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented a petition from
a parish in the county of Bucks, against the Poor Laws
Amendment Bill.
Lord SE AGR AVE presented a petition, praying their
Lordships to pass the London and Westminster Bank Bill.
The Earl of WI CKL OW said he wished to know whether it
was the intention of the House again to take the opinion
of the Judges upon that Bill, before proceeding with it
further. He asked that because he saw that in less than a
week those learned personages would be off to the circuits.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he saw great difficulties
in the way of such a proceeding. He had been most anxious
for the assistance of two of the Judges in the Courts
of Chancery to hear a very important cause, and
found that in that he failed. It was not his intention
to require their assistance again, but he would be
able to give a decided answer to-morrow. While he was on his
legs he would take the opportunity of presenting a petition
from, he believed, a very worthy and honest individual, named
John Lawless, against the Coercion Bill. He had mistaken
the purport of the petition when he first got it, otherwise he would
have taken an opportunity of presenting it before the second
reading of the Bill. He need scarcely say that he could not
agree in the prayer of the petition, as he had on a former
night stated the reasons which induced him to support it. The
petitioner stated various reasons against the renewal of the
Coercion Bill, and in favour of a repeal of the Union, but
as it was worded, though it was perfectly respectful, he
could not present it, for in the %try first sentence the pct.-
titioner alluded to a speech which had been delivered in
that House.

The petition was accordingly withdrawn.
The Earl of WICKLOW brought up the Report of the
Land Securities in Ireland Committee, and moved that
it should be received. He also presented a petition from
Ireland, praying the House to address his Majesty that he
would be pleased to revoke the Irish Church Commission.
The Noble Earl said the petition was agreed to before the pe-
titioners were aware that it had been objected to by any part
of the Cabinet, or that it had been issued merely for the
purpose of answering a temporary purpose, and without con-
sideratio.n.

Earl GREY thought the Noble Earl had better reserve
what he had to state upon this subject until the proper time
came at which he could make his motion. But he had risen
chiefly in consequence of a statement made by a Noble Lord
opposite, as to what had passed in the Cabinet. He did not
know to what particular transaction that Noble Lord alluded, but
this he would assert, that no person, a member of the Cabinet,
could consistently with his duty, state circumstances which
had passed in the deliberations of the Cabinet.—(" Hear,
hear," from the Lord Chancellor.) Certainly a commu-
nication had been received at an early period of the
session, but it was not decided that the commission should be
issued without mature deliberation. He did not mean to deny
that the individuals to whom the Noble Lord opposite had allud-
ed had not felt very strong objections to it, but he would say
that he did not consider it was quite proper that they should
disclose what had passed in the Cabinet.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
The Duke of RICHMOND rose, in consequence of what
the Noble Lord had just stated. He was quite sure the Noble
Earl did not mean to impute anything improper to
him, but in cases of this sort, where the honour of the individual
was concerned, he thought it was right that the House and
the country should know the real nature of the case. When
he tendered his resignation to the King, he had re-
ceived the sanction of his Sovereign to make any
communciation he might think it necessary to make in
explanation of his conduct.__(" Hear, hear," from the Op-
position.) He had thought it necessary to state the real
fact, which was, that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
had early in the session recommended that a commission should
issue, but from that moment till be had left the Cabinet he
never heard anything more of it—("Hear, hear, from the
opposition.) He believed his Noble Friend would recollect
that that was precisely the case, and he could only say that he
had no intention to find fault with any thing that had fallen
from him, but only to explain the reasons why he had made
that statement.

Earl GREY said, that if his Noble Friend had received, as
he had stated, his Majesty's permission to disclose what had
passed in the Cabinet, he could not object to it. He
could only say, that he had received no such permission,
and, therefore, he did not feel himself at liberty, consistently
with the situation in which he stood as a British Councillor,
to state anything of the circumstances that had passed on that
occasion. He was sure his Noble Friend meant to state every
thing correctly, but from the circumstances he had stated, he
felt himself precluded from going into it, nor did he
feel it necessary to state anything more than this, that
the question had been brought very early indeed
into the consideration of the Ring's Ministers by a despatch
from the Lord Lieutenant, and that it was taken up again and
maturely considered before it was proposed to Parliament—
( Hear, hear.)

STATE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord WHARNCL IFFE, in presenting several petitions
against the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill, took the opportunity
of bringing under the consideration of the House the state of the
public business at the present time ? At the beginning of the
present session he had taken the liberty of stating his hope that
the business of the House would be so managed that all the Bills
of any consequence should not be brought forward at a period
when it was quite impossible for the House to give them that
attention they deserved. At the present time (July 7) several
important subjects had to be brought under consideration.
There was the Poor Laws Bill, the second reading of
which was to be moved to-morrow.-_( Hear, hear, hear. )
In the House of Commons there was the Tithe Bill,
the Irish Temporalities Bill, the General Registry Bill, and the
Church Rate Bill ; there was also the measure for the aboli-
tion of imprisonment for debt ; there were two most important
measures for an alteration of the criminal law, and also a Bill
to amend the registry of votes. Upon the 7th of July
the House was to be called upon to enter upon
the whole of those subjects, and give them mature
deliberation ; that in his opinion was perfectly impossible.
There was nothing in the mode of doing business in the
other House that would lead him to think that the
country would consider that that House had done its duty if
it passed such measures silently by.--( Cries of, ‘, Hear,
hear, hear.") If the House gave that attention to the
measures he had advocated, he thought it was quite impos-
sible that the House could be prorogued before its usual time
after the commencement of the session.—( Hear.) As to the
Poor Law Bill, he must say that those who supported 'it could
not be aware of its consequences.
Lord GREY said that no person in that House
could lament more than himself the late period
to which the session had arrived, but when it was considered
that the House of Commons had been sitting almost night and
day, he was sure that no blame could be attached to it or to his
Majesty's Ministers. Some of the Bills to which the Noble
Lord adverted were of such importance, that he trusted
they would pass the present session, more particularly the
Poor Laws Bill.—( Hear.) As to the statements of the
Noble Lord that the country was not aware of the
principles and provisions of that Bill, he thought
that when the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners
was considered, the constant publications which took place on
the subject, and that no expense had been spared by the
opponents of the Bill to excite the minds of the public
'against it—it could not be said that the public were not
aware both of the minutiae and general details of the
measure.--( Hear.) He, however, freely admitted it
was an important subject for great consideration.
With respect to the other Bills, there wore many of them that
it was hardly possible to expect would pass the present
session, especially those which were for the alteration of
the criminal law of the country. He would not give an opinion
upon those bills at present ; but he considered them of
such .great importance that they ought to be carefully
and most systematically inquired into. Another reason
why he thought they ought to be deferred was, that it would
not be expedient to make an alteration in the criminal law
until a better system of secondary punishments was adopted.
Consistently with his duty to the public he was willing to
postpone any measure that did not imperatively call for imme-
diate legislation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to state, with re-
spect to the Amendment of the Law Bills, that one of them,
that relating to the abolition of imprisonment for debt, he
looked on as impossible to be passed this session. Ile
doubted even whether it would pass the other House of
Parliament. It was hopeless to expect that such a great
change in the law of debtor and creditor, though it might
be beneficial and wise, should be allowed to pass in this,
the very session when it was first introduced.--( Hear.) It
was fair to his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Attorney-Ge-
neral, that he should state, in answer to complaints made in
and out of doors, again and again, of there having been great
delay in introducing the Bill, that, in fact it could not possibly
have been brought forward one day earlier. He (the Lord
Chancellor) had seen some of those complaints made out of
doors ; and, accustomed as he was to see things misrepre-
sented by the violence of party animosity, he had no idea that
men could have gone so far in misrepresentation. It had been
stated, for instance, that the Attorney—General, though he
was then sut of Parliament, had been in long enong-h to have
brought in the Bill ten times over. Now his Hon. and Learned
Friend went out of Parliament upon accepting his present office
which he had filled as much to the advantage of the public ser-
vice, as with honour and credit to himself, upon the 18th Feb.,
and Parliament began its sittings upon the 4th. In 14 days,
therefore, according to these accusers, there had been time
enough to bring in the Bill ten times over. The accusation an-
swered itself. The Attorney-General brought in the Bill on
the earliest possible day, and it was no fault of his that fur-
ther progress had not been made in it at present. With
respect to the Bills for the alteration of the criminal law, he
agreed with his Noble -Friend that these Bills should be
introduced on the recommendation of men Whose attention
had been particularly directed to these matters; and he
much wished that these alterations, instead of being made as

now, should be taken up and made in a systeniatic way.
He could not but Wish—and he hoped that his Noble
Friend the Secretaiy of State for the Home Department
would take the matter into his consideration—he could
not but wish that the able and learned men, the Criminal
Law Commissioners, some of whom were most versed in
these matters of any men in Westminster-hall, and who
embarked in the consideration of it not only sound views of
jurisprudence, but the most enlarged and liberal knowledge of
its application, and the most intimate acquaintance with the
practice of the law—he hoped that they would favour the
country with a report on the matter before the next session of
Parliament, and call the attention of Parliament to those
changes which ought and those which ought not to be made in
the general system- of our criminal law. That would enable.
Parliament to legislate with better effect on the subject; and
in the mean time, with respect to the delay of these Bills, he
declared that nobody was to blame at all. The other House
had sat almost continually from .morning to night, sixteen
hours out of the twenty-four—indeed all the twenty-four hours
together. They sat every morning, and again every night, and
it was hardly possible, if they were to exercise any discretion
on the Bills submitted to their consideration, that they should
have done more than they had done in this long and arduous
session. The complaint which the Noble Lord had this night
made was not new. He (the Lord Chancellor) had heard it
often made long before he had the honour of a seat in that House,
and not only was it made long before then, but long before
his Noble Friend (Earl Grey) came there. It used to be
made annually by his Noble Friend the late ,Duke of Nor-
folk ; and to that complaint his Noble and Learned Prede-
cessor Lord Thurlow had been used to answer, and to ad-
minister a sort of rebuke to the Noble Duke, namely, that
regularly speaking their Lordships could know nothing of
the end of the session till it arrived • for as the length of
the session was a matter in the Royal breast, it was never
supposed that any one could anticipate it ; and to talk about
the late period of the session was not therefore strictly cor-
rect, and so the Noble Duke was told by the Noble and
Learned Lord.—( Lord Holland here said something to the
Lord Chancellor.) He understood that as regularly as the
Noble Duke made the complaint, was he called to order
by the Noble and Learned Lord, his (the Lord Chan-
cellor's) predecessor. Now only let his Noble Friend con-
gratulate himself that he lived under so mild a reign—
( A laugh)--that he was not called to order ; that not
only was no complaint made of the observations he
had offered, but that he (the Lord Chancellor) joined
with him in expressing his regret that there was not more
time to consider many of the, measures now about td" be
brought under the consideration of their Lordships ; but in
the opinion that some of these measures could not now be
passed, as many of these measures were of the utmost im-
portance, and could not now receive that sifting which that
House was peculiarly fitted to give them.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND made one or two remarks,
which were wholly inaudible in the gallery.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he should cer-
tainly propose that both the Comnion Law Bills should be
postponed till next session.
The Marquis of WE STME ATH thought there could be
no doubt that the House of Commons had not done its duty,
otherwise the business of the session would not have been in
such a backward state.

The Duke of RICHMOND rose to order. The Noble
Marquis was clearly out of order in imputing to the other
House of Parliament a neglect of duty.
The Marquis of WE STME AT H said that he was perhaps
wrong in saying the other House had not done its duty ; but
he still thought that certain measures had been unnecessarily
obstructed in that House.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE made an observation or two, the
purport of which did not reach us.
Lord SUFFIELD thought the Bills for the improvement
of the common law should not be postponed to the next ses-
sion. He intended to bring forward a motion relative to the
state of the criminal laws at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from cer-
tain clergymen in Cornwall, against the removal of the disa-
bilities of Dissenters.