The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-02 00:00:00

THE 'AIN DON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 184

SONNET TO LORI, BROUGHAM,--,
WRITTEN WITH A PEN OF HIbDSOHFIPTH'S RE
DAY BEFORE THE SECOND READII,
FORM BILL.

God speed the Pen ! and he has speeded thine,
And thou hast speeded many ! And while yet
This with Chancellorial ink is wet,
I, having, by due petition, made it mine,
Would task it to the homage of a line,
Heartfelt albeit unworthy ! Thou hast met
With many a storm since first thy foot was set
In dread ambition's way to freedom's shrine !
And met thou hast with boundless praise from men
'Erst on the popular, now on the judicial height,
And—but thy deeds speak nobler than ev'n thy Pe n !
Now in that dread Appeal 'gainst Wrong of Right,
Soon to come in the Lords—tho' Chancellor, yet we,
Three nations, leave again our burthen'd Brief with Thee
R. F.

DIVISIONS IN THE HOUSE

LIST OF THE MING
Of 52 (Tellers includeed), who voted again
the Poor Laws' Amendmen
Halse, J.
Hardy, J.
Hughes, H.
Humphery, J.
Kennedy, J.
Leech, J.
Lister, E. C.
Lowther, C. H.
O'Connell, D.
O'Connell, John
O'Connell, M.
O'Connell, M.
Parker, Sir H.
Potter, R.
Rider, T.
Robinson, G. R.
Ruthven, E.
Scholefield, J.

Attwood, M.
Atwood, T.
Bainbridge, E. T.
Baine4, E.
Baring, F.
Blackstone, W. S.
Brotherton, J.
Burrell, Sir C. M.
Cobbett, W.
Duffield, T.
Duncombe, W.
Egerton, 'l'.
Faithful, G.
Fielder!,
Fitzsimon, C.
Fryer, R.
Guise, Sir W. B
Gully, J.
Macomb, J.

LIST OF THE MINO
Of 27 (Tellers included), who voted against
land) Amendment Bill.
I Nagle, Sir R.
Noel, Sir G.
O'Connell, D.
O'Connell, J.
O'Connell, M.
O'Connor Don
O'Dwyer, A. C.
Roche, D.
Ruthven, E.

A ttwood, T.
Bellew, R. M.
Blake, J. ➢l.
Fitzsimon, C.
Gillon, W. D.
Grattan, James
Gronow, Captain
James, W.
Kennedy, J.
Lynch, A. H.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, July 1.
The house met to-day for public business at four o'clock.
HOWELL'S DIVORCE BILL.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR this bil;
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-
morrow.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Petitions in favour of the Established Church were pre-
sented by Lord .Kenyon, Lord Rolle, the Earl of Warwick,
the Bishop of Carlisle, Lord Tankerville, Earl Brownlow,
and several other peers.
The Exchange of Lands Bill and the Edinburgh Police
Bill were read a third time and passed.
JUSTICE IN BOROUGHS BILL.
On the motion of Lord WYNFORD this bill went through
committee and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.
WARWICK BILL.
On the motion of the same Noble Lord the further pro-
ceedings of the bill were postponed till Thursday.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Mr.
J. Sparrow, complaining of being confined in a mad-house,
and praying to be allowed to state at the bar the treatment
that he has received there.
The Qumre Impedit Bill was reported by Lord SHAFTES-
BURY, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
GLASGOW LOTTERY.
On the motion of Lord BE XLE Y the Glasgow Lottery
Abolition Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed to. morrow.
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented petitions from
various places in the county of Cork, praying for protection to
the Church as Established in Ireland. Also one from the clergy
of the diocese of Down and Connaught, praying to be relieved
from the charge of building glebe-houses.
The Earl of WICKLOW presented a number of petitions
from parishes in various parts of Ireland, praying for protec-
tion to the church. Also one from a parish in the county of
Meath, praying the house to address his Majesty, that he would
be pleased to revoke the commission lately sent into that country
relative to the Church. That petition was couched in strong
but respectful language, and forcibly pointed out the evils that
were likely to result from the commission. It had spread a
panic amongst the poor of the Protestant faith. They thought
it would point them out for total annihilation,and the clergyman,
'who wrote him along with the petition, feared that the tide of
emigration would be stronger next year than it had ever been.
When the petition was agreed to they were not aware
of the sentiments now stated to be—indeed, avowed in
the other house—to be the opinion of the Cabinet.
(Hear.) How the noble marquis opposite (Lansdowne)
could reconcile those opinions with those he expressed as
Chairman of the Tithe Committee two years ago, he could not
see. He was most anxious to see the Chancellor of Ireland
in his place, so that it might be seen what course he would
pursue, and if he supported those with whom he acted, how
he could reconcile such conduct with the opinions he
had so frequently expressed in both houses. (Hear, hear.)
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Lord WYNFORD presented a petition from Thomas Bit-
tlestone, stating the petitioner's regret for having allowed him-
self to be led into so great an error. His lordship moved that
the petition be read, and that Mr. Biddlestone be called to
the bar, reprimanded, and discharged.
Earl GREY said that that would not be following the pre-
cedent which had been set in the case of the noble earl oppo-
site (Limerick) in that case the petition was ordered to lie on
the table, and be taken into consideration on the following day.
Lord WYNFORD said he asked no more for this person
than had been done on a former occasion, but he believed that
he was right in the course he had taken. The minutes were
brought in, and it was found that Earl Grey was right.
Lord WYNFORD then moved accordingly. The ques-
tion was put and agreed to.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND said he could not allow
the question to drop without stating that he did not think the
present petitioner ought to be punished more severely than the
former offender, he for one could not for a moment allow that
the offence was greater than if it had been committed against
any other of their lordships, nor that the Lord Chancellor in
that house was a greater man than any other peer.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I do not think, my
lords, that I would be discharging my duty to the house if I
was to allow the observations of the illustrious duke to pass
without giving them my most decided opposition. I will not
be deterred by the feelings of delicacy which press upon me
from saying that there is no kind of comparison between the
present case and the one before alluded to. The one was a
private case, and the present one was calculated to impede the
course of justice (Cheers), which, if allowed to go on, would
render even the last resort of suitors utterly useless. (Hear.)
I therefore, my lords, hold this not to be the ordinary offence
of an attack upon the conduct of an individual peer. (Hear.)
Besides, my lords, I know not what others may feel, but I con-
sider that a charge of forgery (Hear)__a charge of fabricating
a record ( Hear, hear, hear)—a charge against the first
law officer of the crown, and the first member in
point of rank at least in your lordships' house, and the
speaker of your lordships' house—the speaker ( Hear, hear,)__
I say the speaker of your lordships' house, fabricating one of
your records for personal and unworthy purposes, is a very dif-
ferent charge from that brought against an individual peer,
whether it be in his private or in his parliamentary capacity.
(Cheers.) But, my lords, what I chiefly rose to object to was
the principle of punishment laid down by the illustrious duke.
He says no greater punishment can be inflicted on this indivi-
dual than was inflicted in the former case, and that it would be
cruel and unjust to punish this man more than you did the
other individual. Very well, what is the consequence of that?
Why that you advertise to all mankind that for one day's im-
prisonment,-because Mr. Lawson 3 years ago only suffered that,
any breach of your lordships' privileges may be committed.
(Hear, hear.) Is that to be the rule ? (Cries of " No, no,"
from the Duke of Cumberland, followed by loud cheers.) If
the illustrious duke did not say so, I am perfectly sure that I
misunderstood him (Hear, hear), and I am equally sure that
I am not the only one who misunderstood him ; (Cheers, and
a cries
se o"
No, no, no," from the Duke of Cumberland) be-
n believe every person present drew the same conclu-
sion from his words, namely, that it would be unjust to give
this man more punishment because the last man that had been
brought before you did not receive more. (Hear.) Every
case must and is to be taken upon its own individual circum-
stances (Loud cries of " Hear, hear, hear"), and I
by no means intend to say that because I shall concur
in a motion to-morrow for liberating this individual, as I made
the motion last night, and, therefore, no one can accuse me of
wishing to punish him, if I had had my will he would not have
been in custody at all--but my lords, Iby no means intend to
say that because I shall agree to the motion for discharging
that individual that I am thereby precluded from refusing any
concurrence to a similar motion the very next time a breach of
privecommitted. ( Hear, hear.) Each case as I said
before muist be taken upon its own merits.
The Earl of MALMESBURY rose to order. He con-
siodteicrend of th
motione discussion to be premature, as there had been a
given, and the noble lord would have an op-
portunity to-morrow of stating any thing further he had to say
upon it. (Hear, hear, from some of the opposition.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR—My lords, I freely ac-
knowledge there is no question before the house, and that we
are anticipating a debate, but I wish to ask why it did not
strike the noble earl till I spoke ( Hear, hear) that three
was disorder committed. (Cheers.) The illustrious duke
was the individual whom the noble earl ought to have inter-
rupted, and not me. (Cheers.) In all that I have said, my
lords, I have been anxious to give the noble and illustrious
duke an opportunity of setting himself right with the house.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND considered that, on a
question of breach of privilege, the Lord Chancellor was not
to be considered as higher in point of rank than any other
peer.
The Lord CHANCELLOR stated, that the great offence
was the attacking of the Lord Chancellor in his judicial capa-
city, and accusing him in that capacity of forging a judicial
record. (Hear, hear.) If the illustrious duke had been acting
judicially, and the same observations had been made with
it would have been/considered as great an offence
as if the observations had been made against
irnespthecattthoohuisme,
himself.
The Earl of MALMESBURY and Lord WYNFORD made a few
observations that were inaudible in the gallery.
Earl GREY felt very strongly the impropriety of the re-
mark of the illustrious duke, that this was a case of personal
libel, and was therefore to be treated, although it applied to
the Lord Chancellor in no other way than if it applied to any
lay lord. If such was to be the case, the seat of justice would
become, instead of an honour, a degradation. ( Hear, hear.)
He was willing that the offence should be visited with the most
mitigated punishment, but at the same time, he was anxious
that the dignity of the house and the privileges of their lord-
ships should be considered sacred. His lordship in conclusion
referred to Mr. Perry's case of the Morning Chronicle, in the
year 1798, as a precedent.
The petition after a lengthened discussion was ordered to be
taken into consideration to-morrow (Wednesday.)
A message from the Commons announced the passing of the
Shannon Bridge Bill, the Isher Bridge Bill, &c.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND withdrew Lord London.
derry's motion on Portuguese affairs,which stood for Friday next
IRISH COERCION BILL

Earl GREY then rose and said, that he begged to assure
their lordships, that he had never upon any occasion felt more
regret than on this, in finding himself under the necessity of
proposing to their lordships the renewal of the Coercion Act.
It was an act which was justified only in a case iof the best
authenticated and most cruel necessity, but where that neces-
sity was made to appear, he felt that he should be unworthy of
being a member of their lordships' house, and still more of
holding a seat in his Majesty's councils, if he hesitated to re-
commend the renewal of that measure, when he believed it
necessary for the maintenance of the public peace in Ireland,
and even the safety and security of his Majesty's crown. In
the last session of Parliament it had fallen to his lot to propose
to their lordships the act which he should now move that they
should renew. It would be painful for him to repeat the state-
ments which he had then made to show the unsettled and dis-
turbed situation of Ireland at that time, and which, in the
opinion of his Majesty's Government, justified them in passing
the measure. He might, however, mention, that such was
their lordships' opinion of the state of Ireland, that they una-
nimously agreed as to the necessity of the measure : and in
the other house of Parliament, a great majority of the repre-
sentatives of the people were of the same opinion. Indeed, so
decisive was the majority in that house, that on every division
which took place on the different clauses of the bill, the majo-
rity was as four to one in favour of the measure. This being
the case at the period of passing the measure, in rising to pro-
pose the renewal of this severe aot, the first thing that would
be expected from him was, in the first place, to sinw in what
manner the act, while in operation) had by found to work ;
and if their lordships were that it had worked benefi-
cially for the peace of Ireland, then it would become his duty

Decrease under these three heads ... 56
The counties of Carlow, Louth, and Wexford, appear
almost quite free from crimes of an insurrectionary character.
Two cases only being reported during the month of May in
the two first, and three in the last ; all of a trifling nature.
In Kilkenny (proclaimed), there appears a decrease of crime
of every description, from 50 in the month of May, 1833, to
36 in the month of April, 1834 ; and 31 in May, 1834. Of
these, 43 are reported in May, 1833, as being of a political
character; 26 in April, 1834; and only 13 in May, 1834;
being a decrease in crimes of this nature of 30 since the cor-
responding month of last year.
In King's county, political offences had decreased from 15
committed in May, 1833, to 5 committed in May, 1834. Five
baronies of this county are proclaimed.
In Westmeath, the decrease in the number of political
crimes since the proclamation of three baronies, on the sth
May last, is very great. The number of such offences reported
in April being 44 ; in May (of which 5 were committed prior
to the proclamation), 19; being a decrease on the month of 25.
Queen's county appears in the worst state ; there being an
increase both of crime in general, and of those of a political
character. Of the latter, 23 are reported in May, 1833;. 29
in April, 1834 ; 34 in May, 1834 ; showing an increase of 5
in the month, and 11 on the same month of the previous year.
Sir S. Harvey thinks (June 7, 1834) that the provisions of the
act would be usefully extended to this country.
PROVINCE OF MUNSTER.*
Crimes of every description :
Committed in April, 1834 162
May, 1834 l7l
Increasein May 9
Committed in May, 1833 54
May, 1834 l7l
Increase in 1834
117
The principal increase being in assaults and larcenies.
Crimes of an insurrectionary character
Committed in April, 1834 56
May, 1834 2B
Decrease in May
28 Committed in May, 1833 27
May, 1834 2B
Increase in 1834
1
The principal decrease in crimes of this nature since April,
is in assaults, attacks upon houses, and burnings, and attempts
at ditto.

The county Cork appears quite quiet ; no case of an insur-
rectionary nature being reported during the month. In April
there were 17 in the county and city. Of the 57 crimes of
other descriptions reported from the county and city during
the month, few appear of a serious nature.
Kerry is also described as in a most satisfactory state ; only
* A great part of the apparent increase of crime in thi! province,
in the year 1834, proceeds from the fact, that the county of the
city of Cork has been brought, for the first time, under the consta-
bulary system, and is, for the first time, inserted in the Inspector's
Report.